Pope Honorius before the tribunal of reason and history

-

iw l ' } 'r
nWV-.J;

'.:

?i

mS*fc

i

l ^V

ti ii?ti.fra'^

!

POPE 1ION011IUS

TIMIU'NAL OF KKASOX AM) HISTORY.

LONDON :

BUISSON AND SON, GREAT NORTHERN PRINTING \VOUK.S,
PANCKAS ROAD, N. \V.

POPE HONORIUS

BEFORE Tin:

TRIBUNAL OF REASON AND HISTORY.

BY THE

REV. PAUL BOTTALLA, S.J.

I'llOFESSOK OF THEOLOGY IN ST. BEUNO'S COLLEGE,
XORTII WALES.

LON DON:

BURNS, GATES, AND COMPANY.

I'ollTMAN STREET, I'nlM'.MAX SQUARE.
1868.

PREFACE.

IT had been the writer's intention, on issuing his
recent work on the Supremacy of the Roman Pon-
tiff, to follow up the argument by the publication
of another volume on Papal Infallibility. But cir-
cumstances have led to an alteration in his plan,
and have induced him to anticipate a little, and
at once publish an Essay on the supposed fall and
heresy of Pope Honorius. This change is rendered
advisable by the pamphlet of Mr. P. Le Page Renouf,
which appeared in May last, entitled The Condem-
nation of Pope Honorius. Mr. Renouf has not been
satisfied with following in the steps of Dr. Db'llinger
in that writer's unfortunate crusade against Papal
Infallibility ; he must aim yet higher. He believes
that u an influential party in the Church is looking
forward with impatience to the day in which their
favourite dogma (Papal Infallibility) shall be de-
fined as an article of faith, introduced into our
and made obligatory under pain of ana-

vi Preface.

thema upon all the children of the Church." 1 He
seems to suppose himself, on this account, to have
received from on high the mission of giving the
alarm to all the theologians of the Catholic world
that Ultramontanism is preparing to win a new vic-
tory over the opposite party. He, a layman, with-
out any solid foundation of theological study, comes
forward to caution Catholic theologians against the
artifices prepared and the snares laid for them; he
informs them that they are about to be led to reject
" the old maxim of Vincent of Lerins, ' quod sem-
per, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,' as a test of
Catholic doctrine;" that they will have to "abjure
the Creed of Pope Pius, according to which they
have sworn that they will never interpret Scripture
otherwise than according to the unanimous consent
of the Fathers." 2 He is therefore good enough to
instruct them that there is not a single Father who
favours the Ultramontane theory of Papal Infalli-
bility; not a Council which has believed it; 3 that
" the existence of such privilege was in fact never
heard of till after the separation of the East from
the West ;" 4 that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility
was not consistently developed before the sixteenth

1 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 27; London, 1868.

2 Ib. p. 28. 3 Ib . pp. 28-30. 4 Ib. p. 30.

Prefaa . vii

ci-iitiirv; 1 " 1 l)iit rather "elaborated in that age;" 6 that
Ultramontanism is of recent date, for the greater
proportion of the mediaeval theologians rejected an
opinion, afterwards adopted by writers whose " com-
bined weight cannot even tend to make an article
of faith." 7 The bold assertions heaped up by Mr.
Renouf in tribus pagellis is not so amazing as the tone
of contempt and the unbecoming and even outrageous
language which he adopts towards the most learned
theologians, and the whole body of Catholic writers
who have attempted to defend Papal Infallibility,
whether in general, or in the particular case of Pope
Honorius. " They represent," Mr. Kenouf tells us,
" a pseudo-scientific method of reasoning in theo-
logy ;" 8 u they strangely misunderstand the spirit of
St. Thomas, whom they ignorantly admire;" 9 "they
betray an utter ignorance of the real nature of the
controversy ;" 10 " they altogether misrepresent the
matter." 11 He condemns in the strongest terms their
" ignorant assertions, which have been," as he says,
"common of late;" 12 he attributes to them "bad
arguments," " monstrous forms of hypothesis," " mi-
serable evasions, which cannot have been sincerely
believed in by their authors." 13 He goes still fur-

5 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 31. 6 Ib. p. 7.

7 Ib. pp. 37, 38. 8 1. c. 9 1. c. 10 Ib. p. H.

11 Ib. p. 23. 12 Ib.p.l note. 13 Ib. pp. 7, 10, 24.

viii Preface.

ther. Without a particle of that reserve which com-
mon courtesy, if no other feeling, ought to have
suggested, he accuses them of falsehood, of stupid
bigotry, of dishonesty. " It is a simple untruth,"
he asserts, a to say that Honorius was condemned
for neglect." 14 Yet he ought to know that, at the
present day, this is the opinion most commonly held
among Catholics. " It is a sheer dishonesty," he
adds in the next page, a to shut one's eyes to the
strongest words of the Council." 15 " It is stupid
bigotry to assert," he says in another place, " that
Honorius was in good faith." 16 In such terms does
this civil-spoken writer charge the bulk of modern
theologians with bigotry and dishonesty. He speaks
yet more plainly of F. Perrone, the well-known
Professor of Theology at the Eoman College ; he cites
a passage from the Prcelectiones Tlieologicce, naming
the author, and then remarks upon it, " under this
contemptible quibbling we have the assertion of
an untruth." 17 To speak thus contemptuously of
the great mass of Catholic theologians is not only
unbecoming a Catholic writer, but also, we make
bold to say, it ill suits the character of an English
gentleman; and persons of all religions should join

14 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 11.

15 Ib. p. 12. 1C Ib. p. 18. w ib. p. 24 note.

Preface. ix

in reprobating the use of such laniruauv. Mr. Renouf
lias no words of praise or commendation for any of
the Catholic writers who belong to what he calls the
Dltramontane school; bnt he exalts to the skies all
those who were the promoters of Gallicanism.

IFe gives the epithet of great to the well-known
Defensio Dedarationis Cleri Gallicani, by which book
he thinks u the Ultramontane theory may be said to
have been thoroughly exploded." 18 He calls excellent
the book of Cardinal de la Luzerne on the declara-
tion of the French clergy in 1682, in attempted re-
futation of Cardinal Orsi's work on Papal Authority
and Infallibility. 19 " All the learned priests he met
in France," he asserts, "or indeed heard of, were
determined Gallicans, and they were men of eminent
piety." 20 On the contrary, the founder of the Univws,
who, as he believes, " brought a large portion of the
French clergy to share his own view" (of Ultra-
montanism), is described by him as "a fiery, ig-
norant, and unscrupulous convert from unbelief or
indifference." 21 He seems to lament that " the most
ardent apostles of Ultramontane theories have been
laymen rather than priests, converts rather than
men who have always been Catholics." 22 We are

18 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 38.

111 Ib. note. " II). p. 39. 21 i. c . i c

x Preface.

able to give him some comfort by the assurance that
neither is the success of Ultramontanism in Germany
wholly due to the influence of Gorres and Windisch-
mann, nor "was the impulse to it first given in
England by the Tablet, under the editorship of two
ardent converts, who were for a long time a terror
to the ecclesiastical authorities." 23 We are fully con-
vinced that in Germany, as well as in England, the
Catholic Clergy would indignantly reject so ground-
less an assertion. But how is it that, whilst Mr.
Renouf bitterly deplores the influence of laymen in
these affairs, he, a layman, appears to aim at the
leadership of the English Catholic Clergy in a career
of upholding Gallican theories ? We do not take
upon ourselves to judge the private intentions of the
author : we judge his pamphlet, which, by its dog-
matic tone, certainly appears to manifest some such
hopes. Even if this were not Mr. Renouf s inten-
tion, how is it that he, a Catholic, comes forward to
arouse the rebellious spirits of this country against
the infallible authority of the Vicar of Christ ? Does
he think that the English Catholic Clergy want scien-
tific advice, or that they are willing to receive it at
his hands ? We have formed far too high an estimate
of their solidity in holding Catholic principles to be

23 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 40.

/- x

al>lr to harbour such an idea of them. We are sure
that the Catholic Clergy of England have one opinion
concerning Mr. Rcnoufs conduct, namely, that he
need not trouble himself with Catholic controvert - :
that he may safely leave to them the care of theo-
logical matters ; and that he may hope for better
success in his labours if he confine himself to Egyp-
tian philology.

We should have taken no notice of the im-
moderate and insulting language of Mr. Renouf,
had he not mixed it up with a heap of undigested
difficulties against Papal Infallibility. By such an
accumulation of charges, without any order or ex-
planation whatever, simple people may be easily led
into error. Therefore it is necessary to clear up,
analyse, and examine as to their bearing and pur-
port, such difficulties and charges. But as this
cannot be done within the limits of a pamphlet,
and since we hope shortly to publish the second
part of our work The Pope and the Church on
Papal Infallibility, we will refer to it for the ex-
planation of those difficulties which Mr. Renouf has
scraped together from some half - forgotten books,
and then dressed up with the purpose of proving
that Papal Infallibility is untenable. At present we
limit ourselves to pleading the cause of Pope Hono-

xii Preface.

rius, against whom Mr. Renouf's pamphlet is prin-
cipally aimed. We are glad to assume the position
of humble followers of such men as Mamachius,
Baronius, Pagi, Petavius, Gamier, Thomassini, Bel-
larmine, Natalis Alexander, Orsi, Ballerini, and other
theologians of the greatest reputation for learning,
who, in defending the cause of Pope Honorius,
have defended Papal Infallibility ; and we are proud
to take to ourselves a part of those outrageous in-
vectives which Mr. Renouf does not blush to cast
upon some of the most eminent writers which the
Catholic Church has produced.

CO NTH NTS.

Origin and Nature of Monothelwm^ pp. 1-10.

Monophytism : its persistency, growth, and power for three cen-
turies; it enervated the Empire and threatened it with ruin
1 1. radius endeavours to save the State from destruction; he is
ined over l>y Sergius to favour Monothelism witli the political
view of uniting the religious factions Three patriarchates in
the hands of the Monothelites Sophronius resists in Alex-
andria and in Jerusalem Sergius has recourse to Pope Hono-
rius against Sophronius The heretics who first denied two
operations and wills in Christ The new Monothelites a sec-
tion of the Monophysites, although giving an outward assent
to the formula of Clmlcedon Similarity of the dogma of the
Monothelites with that of Severas Both heresies the product
of Apollinari>m Artifices of the Monothelites to conceal and
to propagate their dogma Summary.

II.

The ///<> J.rffer* written /'// J Ivitt'rin* f<> Serein* : their true
character, pp. 16-44.

Double aspect of the controversy concerning Honorius' two letters
to S.Tgius Characters of a Papal document ex r>////>J,v/ in a
matter of faith Honorius' t\vo letters devoid of these distinc-
tive marks Sergius did not apply to the Pope for a final de-
rision in the matter; he is hindered from doing so by motives
of prudence Summary of Sergius' leiter to Honorius: he in-
sists only on an economical abstinence from the use of the
words, "one or two operations in Christ" Honorius consents
to his proposal, hut defines nothing : his letters devoid of
synodical character; not intended for tin- instruction of all
the Church : therefore long remained unknown in the archives

xiv Contents.

of Constantinople Second embassy sent by Sophronius to
Pope Honorius ; that Pope dead when it reached Kome Re-
marks on the embassy Mr. Renouf s mistake concerning doc-
trinal definitions.

III.

Orthodox Doctrines contained in the two Letters of Pope
Honorius to Sergius, pp. 45-80.

JDe Marca's judgment on the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius The
calumniators of that Pope Capital dogma of Monothelism,
the assertion of one operation in Christ The contrary doctrine
was clearly proposed by St. Leo in his dogmatical letter The
letters of Pope Honorius set forth the identical doctrine of St.
Leo In Sergius' letter to Honorius the Monothelite dogma is
plainly advocated Further explanation of the Catholic doc-
trine on the Incarnation contained in Honorius' letters He
excluded from Christ only the " will of the flesh" True ex-
planation which he gives of the text, "Non quod ego volo,"
&c. New mistake of Mr. Reiiouf in the matter Evidences
in favour of the foregoing explanation of Honorius' letters
Authority and honesty of the witnesses referred to defended
against the false imputations of Dr. Dollinger and Mr. Renouf
No similarity whatever between the letters of Honorius and
the Edhesis and Tyi>us Their contradictory nature Con-
temporary witnesses of Honorius' orthodoxy The Council of
Lateran under Martin I. It furnishes a proof of the ortho-
doxy of Honorius.

IV.

The Sixth Synod and the Condemnation of Pope Honorius,
pp. 80-136.

Great evils caused in the Eastern Church by Monothelisni The
Greek Emperors persecute the Catholics and support the schism
Constantino Pogonatus begs from the Pope a General Council
for the peace of the Church It meets at Constantinople The
Emperor held in it the first place of honour, not of right The
Papal Legates are instructed to set before the Synod the cer-
tain and unchangeable doctrine of the Roman See Pope Aga-
tho's letters to the Emperor and to the Council clearly state
the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in its principles and its prac-

XV

thers of the Sixth Council are compelled to sulniiit
to tin- Papal decisions, under threat of reprobation They .sub-
mit to all the Papal conclusions in the completes! manner
They profess the same full submission Lei ore and after Ilono-
ritis' condeinnatioii consequently they could not have con-
demned this Pope for error <\,- r</f//r</r<i Inquiry into the real
oHence for which Ilonoriiis was condemned Passages of the
Synod in which he is condemned apart from the Mxmothelite
heretics, and other passages in which he is condemned in com-
mon with the rest Examination of tin- decree of his condem-
nation The cause of his condemnation is advisedly distin-
guished by that document from that of the Monothelites In
it, as well as in the others, it is placed in his having followed
St -i-giiis in all his designs True meaning of these words Real
crime of Honorius The diiliculty brought by Mr. Eenouf is
answered Examination of the passages in which he is con-
demned in common with the others In what sense Honorius
partook of the same fault in suH'hnu with the others, although
guilty of no heresy whatever Mr. Ixenoufs injudicious appeal
to Pyrrhus' and Macnrius' testimony against Honorius Addi-
tional remarks on the address of the Sixth Synod to Pope
Agatho concerning Honorius' condemnation Conduct of the
Council in condemning that Pope The Roman See never
authorised the Synod to condemn Honorius as a heretic Pope
Leo II. sanctioned only the definition of faith of the Council,
and manifestly upheld Papal Infallibility In his letter of
confirmation of the Council the fault of Honorius is attributed
to grievous neglect in the discharge of his duty Pope Leo in-
culcated the same in his letters to the Bishops of Spain and to
Kin- Krvigius Misrepresentation of a passage of the letter by
Mr. Renouf The Liln r 1)1 urn us tells in favour of Honorius'
orthodoxy Opinions of Gamier and De Marca in the matter
From the second profession of faith a new confirmation is
given of his orthodoxy Examination of the fourth lesson of
the old IJoiuan Breviary lor the Feast of St. Leo II. In older
Latin Breviaries no name is mentioned of those who were con-
demned by the Sixth Synod The. lessons for that feast are
copied word fur word from St. Leo's Life, written by Anas-
tasius This writer was one of the most /ealous defenders of
Honorius' orthodoxy, and could not say of him that he had
denied tin- two wills and operations in Christ Anastasius made
a summary of the condemnation of the Sixth Synod from St.

xvi Content*.

Leo's letter to Constantine ; but lie suppressed the grounds of
the several condemnations mentioned in it The words, " qui
Tinam voluntatem et opcrationem in I). N. J. C. dixerunt," &c.
do not concern Honorius or any of those named, Imt only
the last class of heretics, as in Leo's letter and in the second
profession of faith in the Lilcr D'turiui* Not correct to say
that Honorius' name was expunged in the reformed Roman
IJreviary, and the others retained; nor would it have been
unjust to expunge it Purport of the anathemas inflicted on
llonorius by the Seventh and Eighth Councils They did not
condemn that Pope for any erroneous teaching ex cathedrd, nor
for any heresy of any kind The Seventh Synod has nothing
in its profession of faith and in its Synodical Letter to the
Emperor which tells against Honorius' orthodoxy The Eighth
Council intended only to confirm the sentence pronounced in
the Sixth Synod True meaning of the anathema inflicted on
Honorius His name was never erased from the diptychs.

Conclusion, pp. 135-149.

Double object of this apology for Honorius How his name de-
serves veneration and gratitude in England Method followed
in the argument Character of Mr. Renouf's pamphlet The
term of " Ultramontane" given by him to the immense majority
of Catholics He seems to maintain that the Pope is subject to
the civil ruler If he means in civil matters, no one teaches a
different doctrine ; if he means in ecclesiastical matters (and
this appears to be his opinion), he is wrong Refutation of the
opinion.

POPE HONORIUS BEFORE THE
TRIBUNAL OF REASON AND HISTORY.

Origin and Nature of Monothelism.

THE great controversy concerning the Incarnation,
which for three centuries raged in the Oriental
Church with a violence bordering upon madness,
relates to the subject of the two natures in Christ.
Xo heresy caused more calamitous disasters to the
Church and the Empire during the first seven cen-
turies than the one called Monophysite. It struck
its roots so deeply and strongly in the East, that
neither the authoritative Dogmatic Letter of the
great Pope Leo, nor the (Ecumenical Council of
Chalcedon, aided even by the zeal of the virtuous
Emperor Marcian, could succeed in extirpating it.
Indeed, after the general council of Chalcedon, it
spread with a new growth, and developed itself with
a fresh vigour. It invaded the patriarchate of Jeru-
salem ; it overflowed into those of Alexandria and
Antioch, and enthroned its adherents in the patri-
archal sees; it was supported by the Patriarch of
Constantinople himself, nay even by the successors

B

2 Origin and Nature of Monothelism.

of Marcian on the imperial throne. The famous
svunxw of the Emperor Zeno was evidently in fa-
vour of the heresy, though it originated new divi-
sions and schisms among the sectarians. The per-
secutions of the Emperor Anastasius against the
defenders of the faith of Chalcedon, and the
deplorable Acacian schism, helped to consolidate
its existence and widen its influence. Notwith-
standing the exertions of the Emperors Justin II.
and Justinian I., and of the Bishops assembled in
the fifth general council in Constantinople, no means
were discovered of reconciling the Monophysite here-
tics with the doctrine of the Synod of Chalcedon.
The defenders of one nature in Christ, although
broken up into manifold minor parties, such as
Severians, Julianists, Agnoetes, Theodosians, Jacob-
ites, Copts, were spread in large numbers over
Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Palestine,
as well as Armenia and Egypt; and as these factions
were in the ascendant, they appointed their own
patriarchs to the sees of Alexandria, of Antioch, and
of Firjin in Armenia. The supreme influence which
the Monophysites had gained, and which extended
into the provinces of the Eastern Empire, and the
violent hatred they entertained against the Catholics,
had become a continued danger, and a standing
menace to the Court of Constantinople. The Em-
pire was at that time exposed to the savage incur-
sions of the Persians on one side, and of the Arabs
on the other. During the sixth century the Arabs
had forced its frontier, and, bursting into Egypt, had

Origin and Nature of Monoihelism.

the country far and wide. At the same
tinu; the Persian armies had advanced westward ;
and in the first part of the seventh century, after
having ravaged Syria, Palestine, and Africa as far
as Carthage, had showed themselves on the shores
of the Bosphorus within sight of the walls of Con-
stantinople (621). So that if the Monophysites of
Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor had preferred the
strong yoke of these barbarians to the effeminate rule
of the Greek Empire, far advanced in its decadence,
the Byzantine power would soon have fallen into
ruin. It was well known that during the invasion
of Egypt by the Arabs the Monophysite influence
had been exercised in favour of the Saracens, who
in turn had assisted their partisans to obtain pos-
session of the Alexandrine patriarchate. But the
mere existence of these sectarians was a perpetual
source of domestic trouble. Their frequent risings
were not suppressed without much bloodshed, and
the strength of the Empire was thus enervated and
rendered more and more unable to cope with its
enemies from without.

Such was the state of things at the accession of
Heraclius. The ascendency of the Monophysites on
the one side, and the alarming invasions of the Per-
sian armies on the other, made him anxious to effect
a reconciliation between the Catholics and the here-
tics, that so he might be able to make head against
the foreign enemy, and preserve the Empire from
utter ruin. But whilst Heraclius, led by political
reasons, sought for union in his states, some Bishops,

4 Origin and Nature of Monothelism.

who had long before imbibed the poison of the
Monophysite heresy, conceived the design of repro-
ducing its fundamental dogma under a different
form, and of forcing it as a law upon the Church,
under the plausible show of a means well adapted
to reconcile the Monophysites with the Catholics.
The formula under which the old Monophysite error
was to be disguised asserted the unity of operations
in Christ (pa Icnv q Ivtgywx, rov Xgiff-rou). Sergius,
Patriarch of Constantinople, seems to have been the
first to conceive this formula as a means of securing
the desired reconciliation and union; and therefore
the sixth general council said that he was the first
to propagate the new error by his writings. 1 It is
certain that the Emperor Heraclius was gained over
to the new formula, and saw in it a means well
calculated to establish concord between Monophy-
sites and Catholics, and to give the Empire internal
peace, and with it strength and power. From that
time the new heresy gained consistency and sup-
port, Sergius and Heraclius being its most zealous
apostles. In a short time all the leaders of the
Monophysite sects were won over to the formula,
and upon this basis they admitted the confession of
the two natures in Christ. Thus Theodorus, Bishop
of Pharan in Arabia, Paul and Athanasius, the
former being head of the Armenian Monophysites, the

1 Cone. Constantinop. iii. CEcum. vi. act. xiii. Labbe, t. vii. pp.
977, 980. But the Libellus of Stephen, of Dora, read in the
Council of Lateran I., ascribed the origin of that heresy to Theo-
dorus of Pharan. Cone. Lat. Seer. ii. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 106.)

Or it/in and Nature of Monothelism. 5

latter chiefs of those of Syria, were persuaded to
embrace the new formula. Even Cyrus, Bishop of
Phasis, was induced by the artfulness of Sergius to
subscribe to it, and as a price of his apostasy was
appointed Patriarch of Alexandria by Heraclius, as
Athanasius had been rewarded with the patriarchal
see of Antioch. In this manner the new heresy was
enthroned, in the course of a few years, in the three
patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, and An-
tioch, and shielded with the imperial protection.
Athanasius of Antioch, having attained the object
of his ambition, laboured for the reconciliation of
the Jacobites. Cyrus of Alexandria brought the
Theodosians of Egypt to terms of concord by means
of a formal treaty, consisting of nine articles, the
seventh of which had reference to the new doctrine
of one operation in Christ ; 2 whilst Sergius, who was
the centre and the life of all the movement, encour-
aged and supported his adherents in their deceitful
task, and raised up new enemies against the confes-
sion of Chalcedon. He sought to enforce by imperial
law a reconciliation which could not possibly be last-
ing so long as it rested merely on the basis of error
and heresy. But the courageous resistance of So-
phronius, a monk of Alexandria, deranged for a while
the designs of this arch-heretic. Sophronius had in
vain implored the Patriarch of Alexandria not to
give publicity to the articles signed by the Theo-
dosians. To the learned monk Sergius replied, that

2 See them in the Sixtli (Ecum. Cone. act. xiii. (Labbe, t. vii.

r- ''*<')

6 Origin and Nature of MonotJielism.

the peace of the Church and of the Empire imperi-
ously demanded this condescension to be shown to
the Monophysites. Nevertheless, he was well aware
that a policy of silence afforded the only hope of
bringing to a successful issue his deceitful and here-
tical labour of reconciliation. He wrote to this effect
to Cyrus of Alexandria, and gave the same advice to
the Emperor Heraclius.

But the zealous Sophronius did not allow himself
to be entangled in the snares of the patriarch. From
his convent in Palestine he wrote strongly against
the new heresy, and when raised to the patriarchal
chair of Jerusalem, assembled all the Bishops under
his jurisdiction, and pronounced anathema against
the new error of one operation and will in Christ. 3
The election of Sophronius to the patriarchal see of
Jerusalem, and much more his first synod against
Monothelism, could not fail to awaken grave mis-
givings in the mind of the Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, for he feared that the influence of his own
authority, even with the support of the two Patri-
archs of Alexandria and Antioch, would prove insuf-
ficient to counteract the zeal and vigour of his saintly
opponent. Therefore, in order to prop up the falling
edifice of Monothelism some more powerful influence
was needed, and this could be found nowhere but in
Kome, in the countenance of the supreme Head of
the Church and Father of all Fathers. Sergius was
so strongly persuaded of this, x that even before the
Synod of Jerusalem he had addressed a most insidious
3 See Libell. Synod. (Labbe, t. vi. p. 1441.)

Or'njiti and Nature of Monothelisw . 1

letter to Pope Honorius, whose support he sought in
favour of his policy of silence, hoping thus to coun-
teract the opposition of Sophronius. But before
examining his letter and the answer given to it by
Pope Honorius, it will be well to have a clear under-
standing of the exact question raised by the Mono-
thelites.

The error of one operation and one will in
Christ is, in its substance, of ancient date in the
Church. Long before the Monothelites, Beron, and
after him the Arians, had denied two operations and
two wills in Christ : the former taught that our
Lord's human nature was swallowed up by the di-
vine; the latter maintained that the Word supplied
the functions of the soul in His humanity. 4 Apolli-
naris had also inculcated the same doctrine, in order
to show that the flesh of Christ was consubstantial
with His divinity, capable consequently of suffering. 5
On the other hand, as early as the third century, the
Catholic doctrine of the two operations and wills in
Christ had been clearly understood and accurately
propounded by the early Fathers of the Church,
among whom St. Hippolytus, in his fragments
against Beron, had spoken of it with great preci-
sion. 6 He and all the others who had treated the
matter had laid down the important maxim, that
identity of operation would imply identity of na-

4 See Petavius, Theol. Dogm. t. iv. De Incarnat. 1. viii. c. iii.
n. 1, 2, p. 339. Venetiis, 1757.

5 See Petavius, 1. c. n. 3, p. 339 seq.

6 Fragmeiita S. Hippolyti M. Fragm. v. (Galland. t. ii. p. 468.)

8 Origin and Nature of Monothelism.

ture. 7 And unquestionably all the early heretics who
had held the doctrine of one operation and one will in
Christ had either implicitly or explicitly denied the
two natures. This was the case in the instances
above given of Beron, the Arians, and the Apollinar-
ists; for human nature deprived of all its powers, and
animated and moved as a material and inactive in-
strument by the Logos, cannot be truly termed a
human nature, much less a distinct and perfect hu-
man nature ; that kind of union would result either
in the total destruction of one nature, or in a coali-
tion of both into something compounded of the two.
Therefore the Monophysites, and especially Severus
with his partisans, deprived Christ of a double na-
tural will and operation, in order that they might
deprive Him of His human nature. Severus did
not deny the essence and the reality of manhood in
Christ, but held the doctrine of a substantial change
in its qualities from the in-flow of the Word of God
into the sacred humanity. 8 Consequently he anathe-
matised the dogmatic letter of St. Leo and the con-
fession of Chalcedon, because these taught two na-
tures and two operations in Christ after the hypo-
statical union of His Godhead with His humanity. 9
Theodosius of Alexandria, the leader of the Theodo-
sians, laid down the same doctrine in his address to

7 See Petavius, op. cit. 1. viii. c. i. n. 5 seq. p. 336 seq. cc. viii.
ix. pp. 350-357.

8 S. Maxirnus, Opuscula ad Marianum, p. 39 seq. 50 seq. Op.
t. ii. ed. Migne. >

9 Cone. (Ecum. vi. act. iv. Epist. Agathonis Papre. (Labbe, t. vii.
p. 691.)

and Nature of Monothelism. 9

the Empress Theodora, with whom he was in favour ; 10
and as a general statement we may say that Mono-
phy sites of every faction professed the same dogma.
The heretic Anthimus also deduced the unity of
operation and will in Christ from the unity of His
incarnate nature. 11 Thus we have sufficient proof
that the Monothelites were really a section only of
the Monophysites. Theodore of Pharan and Atha-
nasius were certainly both Monophysites ; Sergius
himself was born in Syria, of Jacobite parents; and
when these agreed upon upholding the dogma of one
operation in Christ, they must have grounded their
teaching on the unity of His nature as well as of His
person. For, as Theophanes remarks, "they knew
well that where one operation is admitted, there
must one nature be acknowledged." 12 Consequently
Cyrus of Phasis also must have been well ac-
quainted with that doctrine at the time when he
yielded to the suggestions of Sergius and became a
fiery promoter of the Monothelite tenets for the sake
of the proffered patriarchal see. Moreover, after
the solemn reconciliation of the Theodosians and
Jacobites with the Catholics, the former publicly
boasted, as Theophanes testifies, "that the Council
of Chalcedon had entered their communion, not
themselves that of Chalcedon ;" and that the unity

10 Ib. p. 694, et Cone. Lat. act. v. (Labbe, t. vi. p. 323-328.)

11 Ib. act. xi. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 937.)

12 Theophanea Chronographia ad an. 621, p. 506-7. ed. ttonn.

yap 07i iv&a, // sitsoysia s'/pTjrai, sxt? xai /t!a

10 Origin and Nature of Monotlielism.

of operation being once admitted in Christ, they
would be able to hold and teach the oneness of His
nature. 13 Therefore in the Council of Lateran, as well
as in the sixth general synod, it was truly said that
the Monothelites had renewed, by their errors, the
dogmas of Apollinaris and Severus. 14 Nevertheless
the Monothelites professed externally to admit the
faith of Chalcedon, and solemnly acknowledged two
natures in Christ. Thus Cyrus of Alexandria made
this profession in all the above-quoted articles of
the concord concluded with the Theodosians, ex-
cept the seventh, on the wills and operations in
Christ. Macarius of Antioch made the same in his
confession of faith, read in the Sixth Council. 15 So
did all the leaders of that sect, whose professions of
faith exist both in the Council of Lateran and the
third of Constantinople. But this need not sur-
prise us : Eutyches himself, in the synod held at
Constantinople under Flavian, asserted that Christ
was perfect God and perfect Man ; 1G and yet it is
well known that he was condemned in the Council
of Chalcedon because he admitted in Christ a com-

13 ' yag o't 'laxoi/3/Va/ xa; o/ Qzodoffiavol

rf XaXx>j$ov/, aXX' 57

dia rvjg /Aioig svspy&tag fjb/av o/toXovqffaffa. pvffiv Xpicrov. Theopli. op.
cit. 1. c. p. 507.

14 Libellus Stephani Dorensis, in Cone. Lat. sub Martino I.
Seer. ii. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 105.) Seer. iv. (1. c. p. 270.) Cone. vi.
Const, act. iv. Ep. Agathonis Papa3. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 692.)

15 Cone. (Ecum. vi. act. viii. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 769.)

16 Cone. Constantinop. sub Flavfano Patriarcha, act. iii. In
Actis Cone. Chalced. act. i. (Labbe, t. iv. p. 976.)

Qtbv eJvat xai reXeiov

i-jin and Nature of MonoiheUsm. 11

pound nature, such as would undoubtedly destroy
both the Godhead and the Manhood. When a for-
mula of Christian faith has been preserved through
centuries, from generation to generation, and has
become in a manner a part of the mind of the
Church, the denial of it would argue consummate
impudence, and must meet with opposition if not
contempt. Xow such a formula was that of " per-
fect God" and "perfect Man" in Christ. After the
Council of Chalcedon the Monophysites repudiated
the system of physical composition of two natures in
Christ, as taught by Eutyches. They understood
perfectly that to give any plausibility to their error
they must retain the time-honoured form of words ;
and when the authors of the Monothelite system
offered the Monophysites admission to Catholic com-
munion, on the easy condition of admitting the an-
cient formula of perfect God and perfect Man in
Christ, which had been long before sanctioned at
Chalcedon, they could not refuse to accept terms
which would leave them still at liberty to carry on
their work of mischief.

The new error, in real truth, of the Monothelites
differed from that of the Severians in this only that
what the elder sect derived as a corollary from a
principle, was in the new system the fundamental
principle itself. From the earliest period of their
existence, they maintained in plain terms that there
is only one operation, as there is only one person, in
Jesus Christ. All the documents referred to, both in
the Council of Lateran and in the Sixth (Ecumenical

12 Origin and Nature of Monothelism.

Synod, point to this teaching : 17 all the leaders of the
heresy, from the very first, spoke distinctly of one
operation in Christ, pa ivs^ysia, though some main-
tained likewise the unity of His will. 18 The word
Ivkgyziu, although it is not unfrequently used by the
Greeks in the sense of bigyiipa (an external act),
still is more commonly used to express the operating
principle, ^vvapig, substantial, essential to the nature
itself which it enables to act. So that, as we have
said, it was a very common maxim among the ancient
Fathers, that no nature can exist without its natural
principle of operation, Ivtgyzia. Now the Monothe-
lites absolutely denied this principle of operation in
the human nature of Christ ; and although they
acknowledged that it possessed soul and body, with
the faculties of each, still they plainly asserted that
these were unable to perform any operation whatever
by themselves ; since all the operations both of the
human and of the divine nature were to be ascribed to
the power of the Divine Word, who was personally
united with the humanity. They maintained, there-
fore, without disguise, that the human nature in
Christ was only an instrument of His Divinity ; 19

17 Excerpta ex Scriptis Theodori Pharanitre. In Seer. iii. Cone.
Lat. (Labbe, t. vii. pp. 1 70-71 ^ et in act. xiii. Cone. Gen. vi.
(Labbe, 1. c. p. 991 seq.) Capitulum vii. Cyri Alex. In Seer,
iii. Cone. Lat. (1. c. p. 181), in act. xiii. Cone. Gen. vi. (1. c. p.
988-89. Epist. Sergii ad Cyrum Patr., in Seer. iii. Cone. Lat. (1. c.
p. 184), in Cone. Gen. vi. act. xii. (1. c. pp. 948-49). Epist. Cyri
ad Sergium. In Cone. Gen. vi. act. xiii. (1. c. p. 983), &c.

18 Among them is Theodoras of % Pharan. See Excerpta in
Cone. Lat. 1. c. p. 169.

19 ftiav ytvuffxtiv ev'spyeiav, ravrqi; ds nyjlrr^ xai drifjLiovpybv rb\>

iijin and Nature of Monothdism. 13

consequently they acknowledged no other under-
standing and will in Christ than that of the Logos,
from whom the operation and power of the soul
flowed or proceeded. The humanity of Christ with-
out the Logos was compared by them to a senseless
body without a soul. 20 Nay, they went so far as to
teach that the body of Christ was devoid of every
principle of movement and action. Of course they
admitted that our Lord suffered in His flesh, and
they repudiated the error of Apollinaris, that the
Divine nature was capable of suffering ; but at the
same time they professed that although the physical
impression was received by the flesh, nevertheless its
vital power of operation, ivi^ys/a, upon which sensa-
tion depends, was entirely supplied by the Divine
substance of the Logos. 21 This monstrous doctrine
was copied literally by Sergius and Theodorus from
Apollinaris, as can be seen by the extracts from his
writings read both in the Council of Lateran and in
the third of Constantinople. 22 They were too cun-

, Ipyavov ds rqv av6puKorr,ra. Theodonis of Pharan. In Cone.
(Jen. vi. act. xiii. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 993.) See also the other extracts
in that place.

20 Sergius Epist. ad Honorium Papam. In act. iii. Cone.
(Labbe, t. vii. p. 957.)

21 Theodorus Pharan. Excorpta. In act. xiii. Cone. vi. (Labbe,
t. vii. p. 992). Sergius, 1. c. Epist. Cyri ad Scr;iuin. In act. xiii.
Cone, vi. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 984). Macarrns, Professio fidei lecta in
act. viii. Cone. vi. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 776), &c.

2 0oc uvot\ctf$tov ctpyatov xai Qeog sffTi xado evspysT, xai civQguvrog
KOI.TU rb opyavov. /wuv ds Qdg cv /^ra/^s/SXTjra/ Zpyavov zai rb
xivovv [MIU.V rr'-fj'/.ev dvoTthtTv rr,v evspytiav. In Cone. Gen. vi. act. x.
(Labbe, 1. c. p. 872.)

14 Origin and Nature of Monothelism.

ning, however, not to conceal the true source of their
heresy, and appealed to the doctrine of the Fathers of
the Church, especially to the writings which bear the
name of St. Denis the Areopagite. But this holy
doctor never taught that in Christ there was only
one will, much less one operation. He taught that
there were in Christ theandric operations an ex-
pression which implies the two natures as separate
principles of action, though in fact always acting to-
gether. But he never thought of asserting one
theandric operation in Christ, so as to exclude all
operating power from His humanity, and to reduce
it to the state of an inoperative instrument of the
Divinity. Sergius endeavoured to pervert a Catholic
doctrine, and to shelter himself under the authority
of St. Leo, hoping thus to throw dust into the eyes
of the Catholics, and to insinuate his error as ortho-
dox doctrine. It is true, as he maintained, that the
Godhead is the leading and ruling principle of the
sacred humanity; but this does not mean that be-
cause the governing principle ever comes from the
Person of the eternal Logos, therefore operation
(gj>g>yg/) must flow from the same upon an inactive
and insensible humanity. It is true, again, that
human nature in Christ loses its independence, so far
as to require the permission of the Divine Person in
order to elicit its actions; but notwithstanding this, it
keeps its natural freedom, preserves in its integrity
the substantial power of operating, and acts from and
through that power. The theandric operations, if
referred to the Person of Christ, terminate in the

Origin an<l X<iture of Monothdism. 15

unity of that Person ; but considered in themselves
are never so blended and united as to form a prin-
ciple of action which is single in its essence. The
same must be said of the two wills of Christ. The
Monothelites therefore, whilst they denied the na-
tural will of the humanity of Christ (TO Q'thr^u (pvaixov),
advocated one practical and personal will (ro QzXqpa yvu-
ptzov, vvroffrartzov), and they hoped thus to be successful
in deceiving the multitude, by conveying the impres-
sion that they merely wished to avoid the error of
two contrary and conflicting wills in Christ, whilst in
reality they absolutely denied the existence of the
will in His human nature. On this account they
were less reserved when maintaining one personal
will in Christ than when defending one operation in
Him. For it was well known that the word opera-
tion (gvg^yg/a) is commonly taken for what is substan-
tial in every nature ; and that consequently by deny-
ing the two operations in Christ, they would be con-
victed of denying along with these the reality of the
two natures : since there is no nature or substance, if
it be deprived of all physical operation (avwtgyrirog). 23
Moreover, they endeavoured to justify their error
by the argument, that the existence of two wills in
the one indivisible Person of Christ implied a state
of struggle and conflict in Him. 24

23 See Petavius, Theol. Dogm. t. iv. De Incarnat. 1. i. c. xxi.
viii. p. 48.

24 This argument is common to all the leaders of the heresy.
See Epist. Sergii ad Ilonorium Papam, in act. xiii. Cone. Gen. vi.
1. c. Macarii Professio fidei. In act. viii. Cone. Gen. vi. (Labbe,
1. vii. p. 775.)

16 Honoring two Letters to Sergius.

To sum up, then; we may reduce the errors of the
Monothelites to the three following heads : 1st, they
acknowledged in Christ one sole divine operation
pervading the sacred humanity which was merely its
instrument. 2dly, as a consequence, they did not
acknowledge in Christ more than one sole divine
will. 3dly, implicitly, and as a further consequence,
they admitted the capital error of the Monophysites,
especially that particular form of it which character-
ised the -followers of Severus.

II.

The two Letters written by Honor ius to Sergius ; their
true character.

The controversy upon which we have entered
may be considered as presenting a double aspect ;
one concerns directly the infallibility of the Pope, the
other regards principally the integrity of the faith of
Honorius. In other words, it may be asked whether
Honorius in his two famous letters taught Monothel-
ism as Pope and ex cathedra, and whether he person-
ally and as a " doctor privatus" fell into that heresy
at all. A further inquiry may be made, whether the
Sixth Council and the Popes who confirmed it con-
demned Honorius as having taught heresy in the full
exercise of his papal authority, or for some other
grievous fault committed in the discharge of his apos-
tolical ministry. The opponents of papal infallibility

Honorfats' two Letters to Sergius. 17

seek to uphold their cause by the help of the sup-
posed fall of Honorius ; and for this purpose they are
obliged to maintain that the two letters addressed by
tli at Pope to Sergius of Constantinople were really
written ex cathedra, and that they present all the
characters of dogmatic letters. Mr. Renouf, in his
recent pamphlet, has done nothing but follow in
their steps, reproducing all the stock arguments, and
adding nothing of his own but the extraordinary
boldness with which he puts forward their historical
mistakes as indisputable facts, and their erroneous
principles as certain and unimpeachable truths. His
arguments have already been answered in the Dublin
Review and the Westminster Gazette. Before proceeding
to give our own remarks upon them, it will be well
to state summarily the marks which characterise a
papal document as ex cathedra, in a matter of faith.

It cannot be doubted that cathedra (Qgovog) means
the papal authentic magisterium ; so that a Pope
teaches ex cathedra when he teaches authentically
in the Universal Church in virtue of that divine
power by which he is appointed oecumenical doctor
and teacher. But when he thus teaches the Universal
Church and points out some doctrine as a rule of
faith, he cannot leave it at the same time as an open
question, as a matter on which judgment has yet to be
pronounced, or on which silence is to be held till a
definitive sentence be issued. He must demand inte-
rior assent and exterior submission to his dogmatic
decree, since he speaks as the organ of God in this
world and as infallible interpreter of God's revela-

C

18 Uonorius 1 two Letters to Sergius.

tions. Therefore, when in any letter a Pope shows no
such intention of imposing on the Universal Church
such a strict obligation of absolute assent to his deci-
sions of faith, his letter cannot be said to be ex ca-
thedrd, nor dogmatic in the proper meaning of the
word. Consequently, in order that a papal utter-
ance may have the character of a teaching ex cathedra,
it is requisite first, not only that it should treat of a
question of faith, but that it should propose a doc-
trine to be believed or condemned ; secondly, that
the Pope should show the intention of teaching as
Pope, and of enforcing his doctrinal decrees on the
Universal Church. If either of these two qualities
be wanting, the letter cannot be said to contain any
teaching ex cathedra. This is what all Catholics,
without exception, admit as necessary and essential
to an infallible document issued by papal authority.
But according to the discipline and practice of the
Church in ancient times, which was preserved for
many centuries, there are some solemnities which
were ordinarily observed when dogmatic constitu-
tions were despatched by Roman Pontiffs. They were
previously read and examined in the synod of the
Bishops of Italy, with whom the prelates of neigh-
bouring provinces were sometimes associated, or in
the assembly of the clergy of the Roman Church. 25
Again, they were sent to the Patriarchs, or even to
the Primates and Metropolitans, that they might be

25 The place of these meetings was later supplied by the con-
sistories of the Cardinals where the Popes read their utterances
destined to be despatched to the Universal Church.

Honori-us* tiro Letters to Sergius. 19

everywhere known and obeyed. Finally, the signa-
tures of all the Bishops were often required to those
papal constitutions, to show their submission and
adhesion to them. We do not now mean to spend
time in demonstrating these points of ancient eccle-
siastical discipline ; they will be found proved beyond
all question in the learned works of Coustant, 26 Tho-
nvissin,- 7 and Cardinal Orsi. 28 A few remarks, how-
ever, will be useful as throwing light on the matter im-
mediately in hand. First, it must be distinctly under-
stood that we do not maintain the absolute necessity
of the above-mentioned characters, as if no papal utter-
ance of that age could be ex cathedra if any one of these
marks were wanting ; but we maintain affirmatively,
that papal utterances bearing all these characters were
to be regarded as certainly issued ex cathedra; and
negatively, that no papal decree could be considered
at that time as ex cathedra if wanting in all and each
of those characters. Thus, although we believe that
the famous letter of St. Leo to Flavian, Patriarch of
Constantinople, had been read in a Eoman synod, 29

26 Constant. Epist. ER. Pont, prafatio, n. 33 seq. pp. xxxi. scq.

27 Thomassinus, Dissertationes in Cone. Gen. Diss. xx. in vi.
Syn. viii. seq. p. 460.

28 Orsi, de Romani Pontificis Auctoritate, t. i. 1. i. c. xxii. art.
ii. i. p. 188 scq. ed. Roma-, 1771.

29 Although neither in the Libcllus Synodicus, nor in any
other document of the time, is there clear mention made of St.
Leo's letter having been read in an especial meeting of Bishops at
.Home, nevertheless it is known that at that age it was customary
for the ]>ishups of several provinces to meet in Home every year in
the beginning of October to hold a synod for the affairs of the
Church : so that we cannot doubt that Pope Leo had then treated
of the heresy of Eutychcs, of the two councils of Constantinople

20 Honoring two Letters to Sergius.

still we do not consider it necessary to prove this
point against the author of the Defensio Declarations
Cleri Gallicani^ because this at least is certain, that it
was forwarded to all the Patriarchs and Bishops of
both Churches, Latin and Greek, and signed by them
as a symbol of faith, before any dogmatic decree had
been agreed on by the Council of Chalcedon. 31 The
same writer adduces two other alleged exceptions to
the synodical character of papal utterances ex cathe-
dra, namely, the letters of Innocent I. to the African
councils, and that of St. Celestine to St. Cyril. As
to these, we will remark briefly, that the letter of St.
Celestine to St. Cyril, in which a definitive sentence
was pronounced against Nestorius, was truly a syiio-
dical letter, 32 as was that of Siricius against Jovinian, 33
and that of Zosimus against Celestius. 34 Moreover,
we say that the letters of Innocent I. to the Councils

held by Flavian against it, and of his dogmatic letter destined to
be read in the Synod of Ephesus ; especially as, after the miser-
able end of that council we see no less than three Eoman synods
held by Leo against Dioscorus, and in the cause of the Eutychians.
(Labbe, t. iv. pp. 747-751.) Besides which, St. Leo's letter to
Flavian, read in the second session of the Council of Chalcedon
(Labbe,!. c. p. 1214), bears the title of Epistola Synodica,&&di in
the Greek translation of 'E^r/mX?) Jyx6xX/o #youy ffuvodr/tyj. In-
deed, according to the practice of that time, the circular letters of
the Pope were always considered to be written in council.

30 Defensio Decl. Cleri Gallicani, t. ii. 1. xii. cap. xxii. p. 185.
ed. Basilese.

31 Yide Ballerini -Admonitionem in Epist. xxviii. S. Leonis.
(S. Leonis Ep. t. i. p. 794.)

32 Labbe, t. iii. p. 551 seq.

33 Siricius, Epist. vii. (Coustant. p. 663 seq.)

34 Zosimus, Tractatoria. (Coustant. p. 994 seq.)

Honorius' two Letters to Sergius. 21

of Carthage and of Milevis, 35 did not need to be read
and examined in a Roman synod, since they were
written merely in confirmation of decrees already
discussed and examined in a synodical manner, to
\\liich nothing was wanting but the confirmation of
the supreme authority in the Church. Apostolical
letters such as these were not usually brought before
the Roman synod, in the manner which was prac-
tised when the matter was such as needed examina-
tion and discussion before the supreme infallible sen-
tence of the Pope was pronounced.

But whatever exception there may be to the
synodical character of papal utterances ex catlie-
dr<*i from the second down to the sixth century, it
is most certain that in the age of Pope Honorius
such was the custom and the practice of the Church,
not only at Rome, but also in other patriarchal and
metropolitan churches. The Liber Synodicus men-
tions no less than thirteen synods, some Catholic and
some heretical, which were held in the cause of the
Monothelites ; so that all the utterances published
at that time either in condemnation or defence of
Monothelism were synodical. Such were the apos-
tolic decrees of Pope Severinus, the successor of
Honorius, 36 of John IV., of Theodoras, of Martin,
of Agatho, 37 not to speak of the synodical letters of
Patriarchs and Primates issued about that time upon

35 Constant. Epist. EE. PP. p. 887 seq. p. 895 seq.
30 V. Cone. Lat. Seer. iii. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 215). Pagi, Grit, in
Annul. Baronii, t. ii. an. G39, n. v. p. 818. Antwerpiiu, 17 '27.
37 Liber Synodicus. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 1443

22 Honoring two Letters to Sergius.

the same subject. Now we distinctly assert that
both the letters of Pope Honorius, read in the twelfth
and thirteenth sessions of the Sixth Council, were
utterly devoid, not only of the synodical character,
but also of all the other marks which have been
mentioned as required by the discipline of the time
to constitute a papal utterance ex cathedra. More-
over they are wanting in the two other internal cha-
racters which must be found expressly or by impli-
cation in every papal constitution in a matter of
faith. Mr. Eenouf, with his usual boldness of lan-
guage, calls it u a mockery to consider the Pope's
solemn public and most earnest reply to the eastern
Patriarchs otherwise than as ex cathedral But he
should have known that Catholic apologists of Ho-
norius, including even those who accuse him of error,
utterly deny that his reply was solemn and public;
and much more do we deny that his letters concerned
any matter properly of faith. Mr. Reiiouf reasons in
this manner : u Pope Honorius was officially consulted
by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem
merely because he was Pope, and on a question of
faith which all parties considered of supreme im-
portance;" and from this he concludes that the reply
must have been solemn and public, ex cathedra and
defide. We answer, first, that it does not follow;
and next, is the antecedent altogether true? We
think not ; foj; he seems to represent not only Sophro-
nius of Jerusalem, but Sergius himself, as applying
to the Pope for a definitive decision on the subject

38 Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 21.

Honor ius 1 two Letters to Sergius. 23

of the existence of two operations or of one in Christ.
Now we altogether deny that the letter of Sergius
contained such an application. The Patriarch of
Constantinople was too crafty and skilful to lay bare
wn heretical mind ; much less would he have
disclosed to the Pope the true nature of the con-
troversy, that he might pronounce a final judgment
upon it.

Sergius was aware that in the Latin Church, and
especially at Rome, the dogma of the Incarnation
was perfectly understood in its full meaning and
extent. He knew well the dogmatic letter of Pope
Leo, in which the doctrine of the two operations in
Christ had been sufficiently stated, and he could not
be ignorant that this letter had been everywhere
studied and regarded as a complete exposition of
faith in the matter. It would have been foolish to
call at once for a definitive sentence from the very
See which had issued the dogmatic letter on the In-
carnation of Christ ; and yet more foolish and im-
prudent to brave the decision of Rome, at a moment
when Sophronius, the most energetic defender of the
two operations in Christ, had been raised to the pa-
triarchal See of Jerusalem. The most elementary
rules of prudence would have suggested to him to
reconnoitre his ground before making the final as-
sault. In a moment of such danger the hypocritical
heresiarch was obliged to have recourse to half mea-
sures, which might have some appearance of plausi-
bility and prudence, rather than adopt at once an
extreme policy, which, all things considered, could

24 Honorius 1 two Letters to Sergius.

have no chance of success. With all his perversity,
Sergius was not wanting in common sense, and in
this respect an injustice has been done to him by the
author of the Condemnation of Pope Honorius. He
did not hesitate to adopt the line of action which
prudence dictated. His letter to Honorius may be
read in the acts of the twelfth session of the sixth
General Council, and will be found to bear no other
construction than that which we have put upon it.

In this letter Sergius used every artifice which
his craft could suggest as likely to mislead the Pope
and to gain him over to his side. He described, in
exaggerated terms, the return of the Moriophysites
to the Catholic Church : he attributed to them more
sincerity than was their due; and his estimate of
their numbers was cunningly exaggerated. He made
a show of detesting the errors of the Monophysites,
and he spoke of their writers as hateful to God :
ILvrv-fcovg %ai Aioawogov, Htfiqgov x.r.K. faoffrvyuv. 39
On the other hand, he showed the highest respect for
the " divinely - speaking' 7 Pope Leo (faff&sfft'ov Mov-
rog), and for the Fathers of the holy Council of
Chalcedon, whose names were solemnly inserted in
the diptychs in the celebration of the divine mys-
teries by the reconciled heretics. 40 He described as
imprudent the opposition to the seven articles of the
act of concord arranged with the Theodosians by
the Patriarch^ Cyrus, which was raised by Sophro-

39 Epistola Sergii ad Honorium Papani. In act. xii. cone. vi.
(Labbe, t. vii. p. 953.)

40 (Ib. p. 956.)

Honoring two Letters to Sercjius. 25

, then a monk of Alexandria, on account of a
single word on the subject of one operation in
Christ, which word had, however, the sanction of
.several Fathers. He added, that it would be harsh
and cruel to drive millions of souls into heresy and
perdition for the sake of one expression : that in
similar contingencies the Fathers had often followed
an economy pleasing to God (Qsag'tffroig oixofoptcue) for
the salvation of many souls. He observed, how-
ever, that, although the controversy was merely
verbal, it had nevertheless much exasperated men's
minds, so that there was reason to fear the rise of
a new party openly heretical : on these accounts he
judged that it would be a prudent economy to im-
pose silence on both the contending parties, requir-
ing that none should make mention either of one or
two operations in Christ, but that all should hold
and defend the known doctrine which the Fathers
had delivered. He said that, on the one hand, the
expression " one operation and will" was offensive
to many, to whom it seemed to destroy the distinc-
tion of the two natures in Christ : on the other hand,
the expression " two operations and wills" would
convey to the minds of many the idea of two con-
trary and conflicting wills coexisting in Christ.
The Patriarch, moreover, informed the Pope that
Sophronius himself had pledged his word to observe
this economy, and that even the Emperor Heraclius
had adopted his advice. 41 He concluded with the

1 Epistola Sergii ad Honorium Papam. In act. xii. cone. vi.
(Lal>lx>, t, vii. pp. 957-959.)

26 Honorius' two Letters to Sergius.

request that the Pontiff would read the account and
explanation he had given, and would let him know
his thoughts upon the matter. 42

It is true that Sergius, here and there, in his
letter, tried to insinuate his pernicious doctrine of
one operation and will in Christ ; but first he did it
very cautiously, either, as we have said before, by
assuming in its explanation 43 a Catholic doctrine, or
by endeavouring to reconcile his heretical views with
the doctrine set forth by St. Leo ; and moreover, he
affected to speak of the point merely in passing and
historically, without making it the principal object
of his application to the Pope. His apparent pur-
pose in writing is to gain the sanction of Honorius
for the economy of silence on the subject of one or
two operations in Christ, and for enforcing the same
conduct on the Patriarch Sophronius ; whilst at the
same time he does not miss the favourable oppor-
tunity for sounding the mind of the Pontiff on the
subject of the operations in Christ. The Pope, in
his letter to Sergius, answered precisely the ques-
tion asked by the Patriarch. Mr. Renouf asserts
that he " gave his unqualified approbation to the
doctrine of Sergius as contained in the letters
written by the Patriarch to himself and to Sophro-
nius." 44 But we hope to show in the next section
that the doctrine set forth by Honorius in the first

42 ra tfspi TovruvvpTv doxovvra ffTi/tavai. Epistola Sergii ad Hono-
rium Papam. In act. xii. cone. vi. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 960.)

43 See n. 1. p. 14.

44 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 21.

ITonorius 1 two Letters to Sergius. 27

as well as the second letter to Sergius has nothing
to do with the Monothelite dogma contained in the
letter of the latter. For the present we maintain
only that in neither of the two letters did Honorius
give the least hint that he intended to impose any
belief of doctrine ex cathedrd : his first letter ans-
wers the purpose of the Patriarch, and authorises
his economy of silence on the subject of the opera-
tions of Christ. In the opening of his letter he
praises Sergius for having stopped the rise of a new
word which was liable to be misunderstood and to
create scandal among the simple. 45 In concluding,
he exhorts Sergius to preach the orthodox doctrine
of unity of Person in Christ, and of two distinct
natures by which He performs the divine and human
actions, but to abstain from the new expression of
one or two operations. 46 In the other letter to the
same Patriarch the Pope expressly declares that it
is not necessary to define one or two operations in
Christ, but rather to suppress the scandal of the new
and subtle invention. 47 He assures the Patriarch

45 " Laudamus novitatem vocabuli auferentem, quod posset scan-
dalum simplicibus generare." Epist. Honorii ad Sergium. In act.
xii. cone. vi. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 962.)

46 " Hortantes vos, ut, unius vel geminai nova3 vocis inductum
operationis vocabulum aufugientes, unum nobiscuni Dominum Je-
suni Christum filiuin Dei vivi, Deuni verissimuni in duabus naturis
operatum divinitus atque humanitus tide ortliodoxa et unitate
Catholica proedicetis." (Ib. p. 9G6.)

47 " Auferentes ergo, sicut diximus, scandalum novellas adinvon-
tionis, non nos oportet imam vel dims operationes definientes
prii'dicare." Ib. In act. xiii. cone. vi. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1003.)

28 Honorius 1 two Letters to Sergius.

that he had written to Cyrus and to Sophronius,
urging them to avoid the expression of a single or
twofold operation. As to the legates sent to him by
Sophronius, he says that he urgently recommended
to them the use of the same economy, and that they
had promised that their Patriarch would willingly
refrain from the expression " two operations," if
Cyrus of Alexandria would no longer speak of one
operation. 48

Now in neither of these letters does Honorius
show any intention but that of approving of the
economy of silence which Sergius proposed, as the
best means to save the Church from the misfortune
of a new outbreak of that sectarian violence which
had been so lately allayed; and this economy he in-
culcates only by way of suggestion and exhortation.
His first letter conckides with an exhortation which
sums up what he had explained in the course of it,
and which contains the expression of his will. In
the second letter he again suggests and insinuates
to Sergius (hoc quidem fraternitati vestrce insinuan-
dum prcevidimus) the same principles as he had in-
culcated on Cyrus and Sophronius by letter. It is
impossible to construe this form of writing into an
utterance ex cathedra. The Pope manifests no in-
tention whatever of imposing any rigorous obliga-
tion, of defining any doctrine, of requiring any in-
terior consent, in virtue of his apostolic divine
authority. The only purpose to which he points is

48 Epist. Honorii ad Sergium. In act. xiii. cone. vi. (Labbe,
1. c. p. 1003.)

Honorius' two Letters to Sergius. 29

that of approving and suggesting the economy of
silence by exhortation and persuasion. But Mr.
Renouf persists in seeing language ex cathedra in
the authoritative manner in which the Pope ad-
dresses Sergius in the second letter, and he quotes
as follows: ""We have decided" ( avvsfboyiitv, a word
of supreme authority in the Greek of the period) "to
make manifest by the present letters to your most
holy fraternity," &c. ; and further on, " and these
things we have decided (tnmfoop&) to make known
to your most blessed fraternity," &c. 49 First, then, we
do not see why Mr. Renouf puts so great stress on
the word ffvwftoptv, which, even if it had been an
exact translation of the original Latin text of the
letter of Honorius, would mean no more than cen-
semus, and not precisely " we have decided." In
the thirteenth session of the sixth synod sentence
was pronounced against Sergius, Cyrus, Theodorus,
and Pyrrhus, and the words used are Mgtmpev and
0/o/&gv. These are really words of great author-
ity; and of the two translators of the Council one
rendered them by judicavimus et definimus, 50 the
other by statuimus et decernimus. 51 A few lines
further on, when speaking of Honorius, the Coun-
cil used the word avvzibopw, which the two in-
terpreters rendered, one prcevidimus, the other
censemus ; and in rendering the passage of Hono-

49 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 22.

50 Labbe, 1. c. pp. 977-978.

51 Ex vetusto codice Bibl. Paris. Soc. Jesu. (Labbe 1 c
p. 1281.)

30 Honoring two Letters to Sergius.

rius, quoted by Mr. Renouf, they use respectively
the same words ; and they correctly express the true
meaning of the word in question. 52 Again, why does
Mr. Renouf insist that Pope Honorius, in his letters
to Sergius, spoke with supreme authority as Pope?
No defender of papal infallibility would deny this, but
it cannot be inferred from the admission that the
document was a teaching ex cathedra ; yet he seems
to think that no less must follow. In order to im-
pose silence upon contending Patriarchs, the Pope
must of course exercise his pontifical authority, and
communicate his determination by official letters.
But it is not true that the Pope, every time he exer-
cises his pontifical authority in a particular case,
teaches ex cathedra, and exercises his authentic infal-
lible magisterium. Mr. Renouf professes himself a
Catholic, and does not reject the papal supremacy,
although he may deny the infallibility of the Pope's
teaching; and he cannot fail to be acquainted with
the manifold character of the action adopted by the
Pope in the general government of the Church. He
ought to remember that if " the Pope is consulted
merely because he is Pope," it does not follow that
all his utterances are necessarily ex cathedra. But
the Pope was called upon, insists Mr. Renouf, 53 u by
no less than the Patriarchs of Constantinople and
Jerusalem to give his judgment on a question of
faith which all parties considered as of supreme im-
portance." As to the Patriarch Sergius, we have

52 See the Lexicons under the words <ryvg/8ov and

53 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 19.

two Letters to Sergius. 31

seen that the Pope was called upon in a question of
faith, but not to give his judgment on it. With
ivij-ard to the Patriarch Sophronius, it is true that
he sent his legates to Honorius, begging him to
pronounce his final judgment upon the Monothelite
controversy. This is clearly proved by the synodical
letter of Sophronius to Sergius, which letter was
communicated to the Pope. But we have already
remarked that Honorius not only abstained from
giving any definitive sentence in the matter, but he
persuaded the representatives of the Patriarch of
Jerusalem to observe the economy of silence on the
subject of the two wills and operations, as in another
letter to the Patriarch of Alexandria he had enjoined
abstinence from the expression, "one operation in
Christ." In doing this he committed a fault which
we are not here called upon to characterise ; but
unquestionably he could not have pronounced any
sentence ex cathedra on the question of Christ's two
wills and operations at the very time when he was
aiming at quieting the controversy by an economy of
silence.

Again, the letters of Pope Honorius to Sergius
cannot be ex cathedra, because they are devoid of all
those characters which at that period denoted papal
utterances of the kind. Mr. Renouf affects to ig-
nore this important point on which the apologists of
Pope Honorius so justly insist. It is undeniable
that these letters, be their doctrine what it may,
were not synodical. No proof whatever can be ad-
duced tending to show that they had that character.

32 Honoring two Letters to Sergius.

In the Liber Synodalis, and other documents of the
time, all the synods are mentioned to which any of
the successors of Honorius submitted their ex cathe-
dra decisions ; but no mention is made of anything
of that kind concerning the letters of Honorius. In
the Liber Diurnus three formulas of faith are in-
serted, which the successors of Honorius were accus-
tomed to subscribe. They profess in them to hold
and observe all the constitutions of their predecessors
which were synodically decreed. 54 Consequently they
show indirectly that Honorius had decreed nothing
synodically in favour of the Monothelites ; especially
as in the second of these formulas of faith they
openly reject and condemn the epistles of Honorius,
as favourable to those sectarians who 'obstinately
defended the heretical dogma against the truth of the
faith synodically declared and denounced.' 55 There-
fore, according to these professions of faith, what
is synodically settled belongs to the truth of faith,
and cannot be rejected, much less condemned. Since,
then, the letters of Honorius were rejected and con-
demned in those professions, they cannot have had
the synodical character. On this account in the
sixth council they are never called synodical, al-
though the synod gives that epithet to the letter of
Sophronius, 56 and to the letters of Thomas, John, and

54 Liber Diurnus ER. PP. cum notis Garnerii, c. ii. tit. ix.
Professio ii. @Ji Migne, PP. LL. t. cv. pp. 53-54.)

55 " Simulque et hos qui hseretica dogmata contra veritatem fidei
synodaliter declaratam atque prsedicatam pertinaciter defendebant."
(Ib. p. 52.)

56 Act. xi. (labbe, 1. c. pp. 881-884.)

Honoring two Letters to Sergius. 33

Constantine, Patriarchs of Constantinople. 57 Nay, even
when the letters of Honorius are mentioned in con-
junction with the synodical letters of Sophronius, the
former are distinguished from the latter by the ab-
sence of any such qualification ; 58 and this omission
affords a strong argument in favour of what we
assert. 59 Besides this, the letters in question were
wanting in the most essential character of a papal
utterance ex cathedra, that they were not intended
for the instruction of the whole Church. Far from
this, they were not even destined for circulation
among all the Bishops of either East or West ; still
less were the Bishops required to sign them. Mr.
Renouf ought to have known the facts to which we
refer ; but he has passed them over in his pamphlet
without the least notice. Again, it is a fact that no
record whatever exists from which we learn that the
letters of Honorius were communicated to the Ori-
ental Bishops. Sergius, who was principally inter-
ested in the matter, did not put them in circulation,
nor did he even mention them in the Ecthesis, which
was his own composition. It seems that the Patri-
arch was anxious rather to withdraw them from view
and bury them in the archives of the Church of Con-
stantinople, where they were found in their Latin
autograph, accompanied by a Greek version, at the
time of the Sixth Council. 60 Pyrrhus also, the suc-

57 Act. xiii. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1000.)

58 Act. xii. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 969.)

59 See Card. Orsi, de Eomani Pontificis Auctoritate, t. i p. i.
1. i. c. xxii. art. ii. ii. p. 190 seq. ed. Roma?, 1771.

60 Cone. vi. act. xii. xiii. (Labbe, 1. c. pp. 969-1001.)

D

34 Honoring two Letters to Sergius.

cessor of Sergius, does not appear to have published
them, but only to have put in circulation a small
extract from the first of them, which admitted of
being misconstrued in an heretical meaning.

In the Lateran Council no mention was made of
these letters, either by Stephen of Dora or by the
Greek monks in their "libelli," presented to that
synod against the errors of Sergius and his followers.
The very " Typus" of Constans, whilst it forbade all
further controversy on the subject of one will or
two wills, did not even remotely allude to these
letters of Honorius. Moreover it is certain that in
the West they remained unknown for a long time,
until Pyrrhus, successor of Sergius in the See of
Constantinople, circulated an extract from them in
the West with the view of persuading the Western
Prelates that Honorius had been a Monothelite. 61
Certainly in no one of the many synods held in
Rome and in Africa after the death of Honorius was
any mention whatever made of them. Even, then,
if all internal proof were wanting, the very fact that
the letters are without any of the characters which
in that period distinguish all papal utterances ex ca-
thedrd, affords of itself conclusive proof that they
were not written by Honcrius with the intention of
imposing doctrine to be believed, and that they were
not received by the Patriarchs to whom they were
addressed as containing an authoritative exposition. 62

61 Vide Joannis IY. Apologia pro Honorio Papa. (La"bbe, t. vi.
p. 1511.)

62 See Muzzarelli, de Auctoritate Eom. Pontif. in Cone. Gen.
t. ii. c. x. ii. p. 181 seq. Gandavi.

two Letters to Scrcjius. 35

A striking confirmation of this fact is found in the
mission intrusted by Sophronius, Patriarch of Jeru-
salem, to Stephen, Bishop of Dora, one of his prin-
cipal suffragans.

The Patriarch Sophronius, one of the most dis-
tinguished men of the age for his learning, prudence,
zeal, and virtue, fully understood the bearing of the
heresy in all its points. He knew perfectly well
what was the state of the East at that period, and
the rapid growth and spread of error since the time
when the economy of silence was adopted on the
double operation in Christ. But the Arabs were just
then making their victorious advance through Pales-
tine, with the prospect of besieging and capturing the
Holy City itself ; and at such a crisis the Patriarch
could not quit his see and undertake the long jour-
ney to Eome, in order to lay before the Pope the
real state of the Monothelite controversy, and obtain
his final condemnation of the heresy. He was forced,
therefore, to intrust this important mission to a
legate ; and he fixed on Stephen, Bishop of Dora,
for the purpose. Sophronius used every means to
insure the faithful execution of his commission,
taking Stephen with him to the very scene of our
Lord's crucifixion, and there binding him by a
solemn oath to repair with all speed to Rome, and
never to rest until he had secu?*ed a final condem-
nation of Monothelism. He pictured before the eyes
of the holy Bishop the crucifixion and the last judg-
ment, with the object of powerfully moving him to
bring to the most successful issue possible a legation

36 Honoring two Letters to Sergius.

the responsibility of which was the heaviest that had
ever been laid upon him. 63

Before we proceed to consider the bearings of this
fact upon the subject before us, we must discuss some
previous questions which arise out of Mr. Renouf s
remarks upon the matter. He mentions the fact
referred to, 64 but, with his ordinary looseness of
assertion, commits two great mistakes, which he
might have avoided by the study of the Church His-
tory of his friend Dr. Dollinger. 65 First, he con-
founds the two embassies sent by Sophronius to the
Pope ; and next, he supposes that the second, of
which Stephen of Dora was the head, reached Rome
in the lifetime of Pope Honorius, so that he treats the
second letter of Honorius as belonging to it.

We cannot be surprised at some of the errors
into which Mr. Renouf has fallen, for they are com-
mon to most writers upon the subject ; but it is
strange that one who professes to have " thoroughly
mastered" the question should speak of the embassy
of Stephen of Dora as corroborating the view which
he has taken of the conduct of Honorius, and yet
betray 110 consciousness that the historical state-
ments on which he relies were called in question
and rejected even by Fleury, 66 and have been tri-

63 Libellus Stephani Dorensis Episcopi, in Cone. Lat. Seer. ii.
(Labbe, t. vii. p. 108.)
** 6 * The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, pp. 20-21.

65 History of the Church, translated by Dr. Cox, vol. ii. sect,
vii. p. 197 seq. London, 1840.

i6 Fleury himself, who is no ultramontane, had long ago repre-
sented these facts in the same sense. See Hist. Eccl. 1. xxxviii.
vi.-viii. t. viii. p. 367 seq. Paris, 1751.

Honoring two Letters to Sergius. 37

umphantly refuted by Orsi 67 and others. The fact
is, that although Stephen of Dora received his mis-
sion from Sophronius whilst Honorius yet ruled the
Church, he did not reach Rome before the death of
the Pope ; for as he himself informs us in his Li-
In-llns, when the Monothelites got information of the
nature of his legation to Rome they sent orders to
all the provinces that he should be taken prisoner;
and he was accordingly captured, put in chains,
and detained in a prison until it pleased God to de-
liver him from the hands of his persecutors. Then,
mindful of his oath and the orders, the prayers,
and the tears of Sophronius and of all the Catholic
Bishops of the East, he hastened without delay to
Rome. 68 He does not speak in detail of the fulfil-
ment of his mission, but he says enough of it to
convince us that he executed his commission, and
laid the matter before the successors of Honorius,
not before Honorius himself. For after having men-
tioned that, subsequently to his liberation from the
hands of his enemies, he made haste to reach the
Apostolic See, he continues : " Neither did God dis-
regard the prayer and tears which were offered to
Hun by His faithful servants, but He stirred up your
predecessors in the Apostolic See to be vigorous in
exhorting and amending the aforesaid persons [the
heads of the Monothelites], although they wholly
failed in overcoming the obstinacy of the heretics." 69

67 De E. P. Auctoritate, 1. c. iv. p. 200 seq.

68 Libellus Stephani Dorensis, in Seer. ii. Cone. Lat. (Labbe,
t. vii. p. in?.)

-' 1. c. ou <rag/fay o Qzo; rr t v dsqffiv ru\> oix.tr uv aurou

38 Honoring two Letters to Sergius.

These words cannot possibly refer to Honorius, and
must refer to his immediate successors ; for of the
former it could not be said that by his economy of
silence he had tried to amend the leaders of the
heresy, and bring them to a better sense. It follows,
that the silence which Stephen observes in his Li-
bellus about his reception by Honorius, is not, as
Mr. Renouf supposes, to be explained partly by the
economy practised by the Lateran Fathers with re-
ference to this Pope, and partly by the fact that he
himself had betrayed the trust confided to him by
Sophronius. 70 "When once it is shown that Stephen
of Dora did not reach Rome before the death of
Honorius, the two reasons pointed out by Mr. Re-
nouf as an explanation of the Bishop's silence about
Honorius fall to the ground. Even Mr. Renouf
allows that the embassy of Stephen of Dora was a
very solemn one. But it was the custom of that
age and of all antiquity, that every prelate, and espe-
cially every Patriarch, on entering upon his office
should send a synodical letter with an ordinary lega-
tion to Rome and to all the patriarchates, to testify
his orthodox faith and Catholic communion. On
this account Sophronius despatched Leontius the
deacon and Polyeuctes to Sergius with his syno-
dical letter, which was read in the eleventh session

, aXX* tystps {ASV ou /ASTgivg rovg *rpo\a[36vrag u
zig irapafvtffiv, a/&cx, xcti dia/Aaprvpiav ruv
xai {j,qdafj,Zjg rovrovg e{LaXa%av.

70 Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 21.

Honoring two Letters to Sergius. 39

of the Sixth Synod. 71 He sent at the same time,
or perhaps a little before, the very same synodical
letter to Pope Honorius by the hands of other
legates. 72

This legation, however, could not be the same
which Stephen of Dora mentions in his Libellus.
The former was sent when the Patriarch of Jeru-
salem still entertained hopes of bringing round Ser-
gius, Cyrus, and the others ; therefore, in his syno-
dical letter to Sergius, he speaks in high terms of
that Patriarch, and willingly submits to his advice
and correction. 73 Stephen must have alluded to this
when he spoke of the endeavours made by the holy
Patriarch u to recall to the true faith of their ances-
tors the authors of the new error." 74 But when So-
phronius sent Stephen of Dora to Eome he had lost
all hope of ameliorating the state of things. His
zealous and holy efforts, as Stephen himself tells
us, were not able to procure the conversion of Ser-
gius and Cyrus with their faction, but only aroused
against him an anger which displayed itself in mer-
ciless persecution. It was then that the holy Patri-
arch saw that no other means was left to counteract
the evils of the new heresy than to apply to that see

71 See the synodical letter in the VI. Council, sess. xi. (Labbe,
t. vii. p. 884-932.) Ib. p. 929, the names of the two Legates are
mentioned.

72 In several ;as. codices this synodical letter is addressed to
Pope Honorius. Fleury liimself asserts this in his Hist. Eccl.
1. xxxviii. vi. p. 367, t. viii.

re 1. c . p. 928.

74 Libellus Stephani Dorensis (1. c. p. 108).

40 Honorius 1 two Letters to Sergius.

where the foundations of the orthodox doctrine are
laid, and to call upon him who has been appointed
by Christ to feed His flock. 75 The two legations to
Eome are, therefore, evidently distinct. 76 The eco-
nomy of silence must have been suggested by Hono-
rius to the representatives of Sophronius at the time
of the first legation, and accepted by them in the
name of the Patriarch, because at that time he still
cherished some hope of a pacific settlement of the
controversy, and of the triumph of the Catholic doc-
trine. That this was the state of the case is the
more evident, since, as we have seen above, the lega-
tion of Stephen of Dora did not reach Rome before
the death of Honorius. Consequently we must con-
clude, first, that in despatching his second embassy to
Honorius, Sophronius acknowledged that the Pope
had not in either of his letters to Sergius manifested
the slightest intention of proposing any supreme de-
finition ex cathedra, because he so earnestly recom-
mended to Stephen of Dora not to desist from his
endeavours until he had obtained the final judgment
from the "apostolical divine wisdom;" and secondly,
that nowithstanding the two letters of Honorius and
the economy of silence adopted by him, Sophronius,
when sending Stephen to that Pope, solemnly pro-
fessed the doctrine of papal infallibility; for what

715 Libellus Stephani Dorensis (1. c. p. 108).

76 We re g re t that Pagi, notwithstanding his penetrating critical
acumen, has fallen into the same mistake of not distinguishing the
two legations of Sophronius to Honorius (see Critica in Annales
Baronii, an. 633, n. xi. t. ii. p. 802). But at the time in which he
lived no doubts had been raised concerning this erroneous view.

Honoring two Letters to Ser<jii(*. 41

rlsc> can be the meaning of the expression that "the
foundations of orthodox doctrine rest on the Apos-
tolic See" ? 77 What too can be the meaning of a
" judgment from the apostolic divine wisdom," but a
guarantee of the complete overthrow of the new
errors? 78 We may at least call upon the opponents
of papal infallibility to give some explanation of these
expressions that shall not be destructive of their
theory. And finally we may remark, that Sophro-
nius clearly did not look upon Honorius as an ad-
herent of the heretical faction.

Another remark of Mr. Renouf's seems to us
to betray a great want of theological knowledge.
" It will, however, be observed," he says, " that St.
Sophronius does not simply submit his opinion to the
judgment of the Pope : he lays down the truth, which
he wishes to be confirmed by the Pope, but he will
not swerve from it." 79 We do not know to what
passage the words cited refer. From the quotation
we should think that they refer to the words ad-
dressed by Sophronius to Stephen of Dora when
intrusting him with the legation to the Apostolic
See ; but we have read them over again and again
without finding any hint of the sense suggested by
Mr. Renouf, or of the meaning of Mr. Renouf's para-
phrase. " Sophronius," he says, " lays down the truth,

77 ra^eus o-Jv d^b TSSCCTWV stg crspara disXds, n,\yj>i$ civ sJg rbv

i/ xaravrrjffeias Qpovov, tvdot, ruv evffs&uv boyftdruv i/ffiv a/
1. c. p. 108.

78 g^ acro0ro>./x5;js faoffotyiat tig veTzOy rr,v r.plffiv . . . xa/ ruv

doypdruv, r&tiav KOirjffovrai xavov/xsD; rr t v Kardpy^ffiv. 1. c.
. he Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 20, in the note.

42 Honor ius* two Letters to Sergius.

which he wishes to be confirmed by the Pope, but he
will not swerve from it." Is it to be expected that
Sophronius should declare himself ready to swerve
from the truth ? And did he think that the Pope
teaching ex cathedra would propose anything to be
believed except the truth ?

Again, there are two kinds of cases in which
doctrines may be said to be denned by the Pope.
One regards doctrines which are not contained in
a clear manner in the universal magisterium of the
Church, and which are disputed on both sides, as
was for several centuries the doctrine of the Imma-
culate Conception, with many others. The second
concerns doctrines clearly revealed and universally
believed as dogmas of faith, although they have never
been denned ex'plicitly and under anathema by the
authentic magisterium. Such was the doctrine of
the consubstantiality of the Divine Word, and gene-
rally all the doctrines concerning the Incarnation.
Now, the denial of a doctrine of the first class, be-
fore its infallible definition, does not constitute a sin
of heresy : and if either of the two rival schools seek
the supreme judgment of the Pope upon the question,
it must be prepared to submit to that judgment,
and be ready to reject the doctrine till then defended,
and even to embrace the contrary teaching were it
proposed by the Pope ex cathedrd. But it is not so
with doctrines of the other kind. A doctrine univer-
sally believed in the Church is infallibly de fide, the
consent of the Church being equivalent to a formal and
explicit definition. Therefore the Arians, the Nes-

Ilonorius 1 two Letters to Sergius. 43

torians, and the Eutychians were generally looked
upon by the Catholics as heretics, even before any in-
fallible sentence had been pronounced against them.
In such cases, when a definition is required either
from the Pope or from an (Ecumenical Council, the
request is made not properly for the instruction of
the orthodox as to what they should believe in the
matter, but only to crush and destroy error with
the overwhelming authority of a supreme judgment.
As to Catholics, those who, from ignorance or pre-
judice, have been led into error, are bound to wait
for the infallible decree, and must hold themselves in
readiness to submit unreservedly to the same ; but
others, who are fully acquainted with the teaching of
the Church, must be steady in their adhesion to it
while expecting that infallible decision which will
finally confirm their faith. For the divine truth pro-
posed in a decree of faith cannot possibly differ from
the divine truth believed in the Universal Church.
Consequently in such cases, when Catholics, already
in possession of the Catholic truth, apply to the Pope
or a General Council for a definition necessary
to ensure the triumph of the faith over heresy, they
should not harbour in their heart the smallest doubt
concerning the doctrine laid before the Apostolic
See. Much less should they say, as Mr. Renouf
would have them do, that they will change their
opinion if the Pope decides the other way! It is
curious to observe the surprise of Mr. Eenouf at
not finding any such language in the confession of
the faith presented by the orthodox abbots, priests,

44 Hbnorius 9 two Letters to Sergius.

and monks to Pope Martin in the Lateran Council.
Every student of theology would understand it ; and
we may well be amused at the arrogance of Mr. Re-
nouf, who pretends to be judged by his peers that
is, by men who have studied the original sources,
&c. when he himself is guilty of theological and
historical blunders of such magnitude.

The doctrine which Monothelism attacked was
clearly proposed in the universal teaching of the
Church, and generally admitted as a doctrine of
faith. No definition in the matter would have al-
tered in the least the substance of the Catholic
dogma. Therefore, neither St. Sophronius, nor the
abbots and monks mentioned by Mr. Renouf in his
note, nor St. Maximus, could in any manner declare
themselves ready to submit to any decision contrary
to what had previously been preached in the Church.
The case of Gilbert de la Poiree is explained on
the same principle, 80 a knowledge of which would
have spared Mr. Renouf the useless expenditure of
words in his note.

80 The errors of Gilbert de la Poiree regarded the simplicity of
God, the unity of substance in the three divine Persons, the Incar-
nation of God in the Person of the Eternal Word ; that is to say,
the fundamental dogmas of the Catholic doctrine. Therefore the
Bishops of France, who applied to Eugenius III. against that here-
tical Bishop of Poitiers, could not declare to the Pope that they
wer ready to change their faith. But that condition was to be
admitted by Gilbert, who, in his Commentary on Boetius' work De
Trinitaiej had attacked the universal doctrine of the Church.

[ 45 ]

III.

Orthodox Doctrines contained in the two Letters of
Pope Honorius to Sergius.

Two hundred years ago De Marca, a learned
man of his time and a Gallican, left the following
words in a manuscript dissertation, prepared by him
as an apology for Pope Honorius, and which he
had promised to his friend the erudite Labbe.
" Quod ad Honorii doctrinam attinet, jam alii proba-
verunt eum prorsus aversum fuisse ab errore Mono-
thelitarum, neque illis unquam consensisse ; ut inuti-
lis omnino futura sit mea opera, si velim hanc partem
suscipere probandam." 1 Baluze, who put together
the notes prepared by De Marca for the projected
work which death prevented him from completing,
does not question the correctness of his view. We
may say, then, without fear of contradiction, that
the view which represents Pope Honorius as having
actually held Monothelite doctrine, has for nearly
two centuries become almost exclusively the posses-
sion of Protestants and schismatics. 2 But unfortu-
nately Cardinal de la Luzerne, in the early part of
the present century, revived this false accusation
in his work La Declaration de PAssemblee du Clerye
de France A.D. 1682. 3 Later on, some professors in

1 In vita Petri De Marca, scripta a Balutio, pra?missa operibus
De Marcse, ed. Parisiis, 1663, p. 30.

2 Anthimus also, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his encyclical
letter of 1848, repeated again the stale calumny, and charged Pope
Honorius with heresy.

3 It appeared in Paris in the year 1820.

46 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

Germany took up the question of Pope Honorius, but
unhappily in this case they did not apply those just
principles of judgment with which some of their
countrymen, Catholic and Protestant, have vindi-
cated the memory of certain among the Popes, for
centuries the victims of calumny and falsehood.
Prejudice and passion interfered with their know-
ledge of facts and misled their judgments. Hefele, in
his History of the Councils, believes that Honorius 4
expressed himself badly from inability to state his
meaning correctly. But Dr. Dollinger, in his work on
the Papal Fables of the Middle Ages? tries by every
means, even by the distortion of historical evidence,
to prove that Pope Honorius was a rank Monothelite,
and was condemned as such by the Sixth Synod.
Mr. Renouf, who is so full of admiration of the Ger-
man Positive School represented by Dr. Dollinger,
in which the Gallican principles which have been
exiled from France find refuge, thinks himself in
perfect security by the side of such a champion.
He seems also to believe that, supported by the
authority of so great a name, he can speak very
dogmatically, and set at defiance all the theolo-
gians and historians in the world who have ever at-
tempted to clear Pope Honorius and his letters from
the charge of heresy. He treats them all in the
most contemptuous manner, saying that they betray

4 Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Dritter Band, 296, p. 137, 298,
p. 150. Freiburg in Brisgau, 1858.

5 Dollinger, Die Papst Fabeln des Mittelalters, vii. p. 133 seq.
Miinchen, 1863.

two Letters to Ser<//iix. 47

an utter ignorance of the real nature of the contro-
versy. 6 Now, let us hear how Mr. Renouf reasons
in the matter which he boastingly claims to have
thoroughly mastered. 7 " It is undeniable," he says,
" that Hoiiorius sided with Sergius against Sophro-
nius, that he asserted his perfect agreement with the
former, that he acknowledged but one will in Christ,
and condemned as scandalous the assertion of ' two
operations.' " 8 Here let us pause. These three " un-
deniable propositions" of Mr. Renouf s are three
gross blunders ; and yet that gentleman, as he assures
us, "has studied most carefully and conscientiously
the original sources and entire literature of this and
other portions of ecclesiastical history" ! 9 But, in
order to see clearly that Pope Honorius did not in
any manner teach the heresy of the Monothelites
in his letters, we must recall to our mind the leading
doctrine of that sect.

As we have shown at length in the first section
of this pamphlet, the leading error of the Mono-
thelites was identical with that of the Apollinarists
and the Severians. They deprived the humanity of
Christ of its natural operation (i^g^yg/a), and con-
sequently of its will ; they regarded it as an inactive
instrument moved by the Divine Logos. Therefore
their Monophytism (in the form given it by Severus)
was not, as Mr. Renouf believes, " a mere logical

6 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 14.

7 See the letter which he addressed to tin- IJW////Wr/- (_',',
(20 June 1868).

8 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 14.

See the letter to the Westminster Gazdtc, quoted above.

48 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

consequence asserted by its adversaries ;" 10 but it was
the fundamental principle of the whole, and the source
from which the system derives its very being.

The first question, then, to be examined is,
whether Pope Honorius held any doctrine at all
resembling the Monophytism of Severus, with its
denial of the natural operation of Christ's humanity.
It is undeniable that the doctrine of Honorius on
this point is an explanation of St. Leo's doctrine in
his dogmatic epistle, where he teaches the distinction
of the two natures in Christ, and therefore the pos-
session by each of a peculiar and intrinsic principle
of operation, although under the government and
dominion of the Word. St. Leo had said, " Agit
utraque forma cum alterius communione quod pro-
prium est; Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est,
carne exsequente quod carnis est." 11 In these words
the great Pope evidently lays down the doctrine of the
two operations in Christ, in accordance with the dis-
tinction of His two natures, as well as that of the go-
verning power of the Godhead by which the humanity
was ruled. 12 The doctrine of the two operations is so
clearly expressed in this passage that Cyrus of Phasis
could not refrain from mentioning his anxiety on
this score to Sergius; 13 and the most honest Pa-

10 Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 18.
w 11 Epist. xxviii. S. Leonis Papae ad Flavianum, c. iv. (Op. t. i.
ed. Ball. p. 819.)

12 See the splendid exposition of this doctrine in St. Sophro-
nius' synodical letter, read in the act. xi. of the Sixth Synod.
(Labbe, t. vii. p. 906 seq.)

13 Epist. Cyri Phasidis ad Sergium, in act. xiii. cone. vi. (Labbe,
1. c. p. 984.)

two Letters to Sergius. 49

triarch of Constantinople could not otherwise do
away with his difficulty than by a solemn lie, by
alleging, namely, that no one had ever said that
Pope Leo, in the words quoted, asserted the doctrine
of the two operations. 14 Moreover, as we have al-
ready said, Severus condemned St. Leo's dogmatic
letter on account of its containing that doctrine.
Now, what did Pope Honorius teach in his letters
to Sergius, if not the identical doctrine set forth by
Pope Leo in the foregoing passage and by Sophro-
nius in his synodical letter ? 15 He says, " Utrasque
naturas in uno Christo imitate natural! copulates
cum alterius communione oper antes atque opera-
trices confiteri debemus, et divinam quidem, quaa
Dei sunt operantem, et humanam, qua3 carnis sunt
exequentem, non divise, neque confuse, aut conver-
tibiliter Dei naturam in horninem et humanam in
Dei conversam edicentes, sed naturarum differentias
integras count entes." 16 According, then, to the doc-
trine of Honorius, the human actions of Christ are to
be attributed to the agency of human operation, not
to that of the divine Word. But at the same time,
the human nature, which of its own virtue operates
what is peculiar to itself, is not separated from the
divine nature, although distinct from it, because of

14 Epist. Sergii ad Cyrum, in act. xii. cone. vi. (Labbe, 1. c.
p. 949.)

15 Synodica Epistola Sophronii Patr. ad Sergimn, in act. xi.
cone. vi. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 901 seq.)

10 Epist. ii. Honorii Papoe ad Sergium, in act. xiii. cone. vi.
(Labbe, 1. c. p. 1003.) INIr. Ifcnouf omits this passage in the long
from Honorius' letter in p. '1'2.

E

50 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

its hypostatical union with the Godhead. Sophro-
nius, as we have remarked, professed this very iden-
tical dogma in his famous synodical letter. " As the
two natures in Christ," he says, " keep each its own
property in its entirety, so the one and the other
operate what belongs to each one with the commu-
nication of the other ; the Word operates what is
proper to the Word with the communication of the
body, and the body executes what is of the body
with the communication of the Word in the action

itself. Because they are not separated,

whilst they act what is their own." 17 On the other
hand, Sergius also, in his letter to Honorius, hypo-
critically referred to this passage of St. Leo ; but he
did so only in the hope of thereby disguising his
error, in which, however, he was not altogether suc-
cessful. His doctrine is seen to be Monothelite at a
glance, and in opposition to that of Honorius and
Sophronius. He expressed himself as follows : " We
confess that the only-begotten Son of God, who is at
the same time God and man, operates divine and hu-
man actions, and that all divine and human operation
flows from the Incarnate Word of God without sepa-
ration and division. For Leo, doorkeeper of heaven,
taught us so," &c. 18 The Monothelite doctrine clearly

17 Epist. Sophr. cit. (1. c. p. 901 seq.) axr-rrsp yap sv Xpiffrfi
sxarspa, pvXdrrsi pvffig aveXXinZig TT^V savrtjg JdiorqTa, ovru xai
svtgysT exarega, ftogpri j&sra 7%$ darepou xoivwviag rovtf o<7rep 75/ov
sff^rixs, rov /j,sv Xoyou xarsgyafyfLf.vov roD$', onzp sffri roD Xoyou, [Ltra,
r5j xo/yow/ag drjXovon rov Gw/Aarog. rov ds ffui/^arog sxrtXovvrog amp
effrt rov ff(Jj t uarog, xotvavovvrog avru faXaAq rov Xoyov rqg <7rpd^sug . . .
ovrz yag diflpqfAsvbjg evqg'yovv ra 76/a, x. r. X.

18 Epist. Sergii ad Honor, in act. xii. cone. vi. (Labbe, p. 960.)

Honorius 1 two Letters to Sergius. 51

appears from these words, however they may have
been intended to deceive. As long as Sergius had
said that u the Son of God, who is at the same time
God and man, operates divine and human actions,"
it could receive a Catholic explanation. But when
he adds that divine and human operation flows from
the Incarnate Word of God, he points manifestly to
the Monothelite doctrine of one divine operation in
Christ, flowing from the Word into His humanity,
which has not in itself any principle of action. And
this is the more clear, because he had a little before
declared that as the soul is the principle of movement
in our body, so is the Word in His humanity, which
is moved by Him alone. 19

The Monothelite error is expressed here as clearly
as in the extracts of Theodorus of Pharan, quoted in
the first section. How, then, can it be said that
" Honorius sided with Sergius against Sophronius,"
when the doctrine of the former perfectly agrees with
that of Pope Leo, as well as with that of Sophronius,
and is in direct contradiction of the error of Sergius ?
But what did Honorius mean when he expressed his
wish that they should refrain from the expression,
u one or two operations" ? Did he mean that every-
body was to be free to reject the dogma of the two
operations in Christ ? Mr. Renouf and his friends
look on this as undeniable. But those who read
Honorius' letter without prejudice, see that his
meaning is quite the contrary. Let us listen to
the Pope himself : " Xon nos oportet unain vel duas
10 Epist. Sergii ad Honorium, p. 957.

52 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

operationes definientes praedicare, sed pro una, quam
quidam dicunt, operatione, oportet nos unum ope-
ratorem Christum Dominum in utrisque naturis veri-
dice confiteri, et pro duabus operationibus, ablato
geminaa operationis vocabulo, ipsas potius duas na-
turas, id est, divinitatis et carnis assumptae, in una
persona Unigeniti Dei Patris, inconfuse, indivise,
atque incontrovertibiliter nobiscum prcedicare pro-
pria operantis." 20 Two fundamental doctrinal prin-
ciples are here laid down by Honorius : the first is,
that the Divine Word is the only leading primary
principle (ro fyepovixov) of all divine and human,
free, or natural and necessary, actions of Christ;
and therefore under this aspect the Word may be
called the only source of operation. This doctrine
was repeatedly inculcated in the synodical letter
which Sophronius wrote against the Nestorian error.
The second is, that, notwithstanding that hegemonic
principle in Christ and the hypostatical union of His
operations, both His natures preserved their integ-
rity and their natural power of acting ; so that, as
the Pope says, we are to profess that both the natures
operate in the unity of the divine Person. We have
here the exact doctrine which the sixth synod pro-
posed to the belief of the faithful in its definition of
faith. But it is proper here to remark, that Honorius
did not always use the word " operation" or " energy"
in the sense of an internal principle of action im-
planted in our nature ; but he employed it in his
first letter to mean what the Greeks called e^y^a,
20 Epist. ii. Honorii adSergiiun, 1. c. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1003.)

Honoring two Letters to Sergius. 53

or the effect and external action itself. Thus he
sn\ s, " Utrum autem propter opera divinitatis et hu-
manitatis, una an gemina3 operationes 21 debeant de-
rivatae dici vel intelligi, ad nos ista pertinere non
debent," &c. ; 22 by which words he certainly did not
mean the interior agency or power of the soul.
Therefore he continues, " Nos non unam operationem
vel duas Domini Jesu Christi ej usque Sanctum Spi-
ritum sacris literis percepimus, sed multiformiter
cognovimus operatum" (wokvrgo'X'ug tyvupsv avrov
tvtgyovvra) ; and further on : " Multis modis et
ineffabilibus confiteri nos communione utriusque na-
ture condecet operatuni." 23 That multiplicity of
actions in Christ evidently alludes to the external
manifestation of the natural energy, not to the energy
or agency itself. And this is the more manifest as
Honorius quotes St. Paul's words, 24 in which the
Apostle speaks of external acts (iuggy^ara), not
of natural operation. 25 But "it is undeniable," in-
sists Mr. Renouf, following in the footsteps of Dr.
Dollinger, 26 " that Pope Honorius acknowledged but

21 Epist. i. Honorii ad Sergium, in act. xii. synodi vi. (Labhe,
1. c. p. 963.)

22 Ib. 1. c. p. 963. 23 Ib. 1. c. p. 966. 24 1 Cor. xii. 6.

25 In the Greek text of the Epistle of Honorius instead of
svepytfLaruv we read evegyeiuv. This shows that among the Greeks
tin- word ev'epyeia was known to have both senses of natural opera-
tion and of its acts, or svep i yr l /j.ara, as all the Fathers, especially St.
^luximus ami St. John Damascene, testify. We are surprised that
Dr. Dollinger was not aware of this when in his pamphlet (pp. 133,
134) he accused Honorius of having twisted the word svspyzia. to a
dim-rent sense.

26 Die Papst Fabeln des Mittelalters, pp. 132, 133.

54 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

one will in Christ." Certainly, it may be undeniable
for dreamers who deal with phantoms, mistaking
them for living realities, not for such as study his-
torical documents with a mind free from prejudice
and a heart free from passion. Our readers shall
have the very words of Honorius, and then shall
judge for themselves : " Unde et unam voluntatem
fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quia profecto a
Divinitate assumpta est nostra natura, non culpa ; ilia
profecto qua3 ante peccatum creata est, non quae post
pra3varicationem vitiata." 27 Every time we read
these words of Honorius, we are amazed that men
who profess an extended and scientific knowledge of
literature have been able to disguise from themselves
the natural and obvious purport of the words. Now
it is really undeniable that Pope Honorius does not
assert that there is only one will in Christ, and that
divine, but on the contrary maintains that in the hu-
manity assumed by the Word there is only one will,
and that the spiritual will. His argument is as fol-
lows : the "Word of God took to Himself our nature,
not the sin which is in it ; our nature as it was
created before sin, not as it was corrupted by trans-
gression. Now, our natural will, the will as a power
of our soul, is not a fruit of sin ; it was an essential
part of human nature, even before this was stained
with sin. Hence the Word of God by assuming our
nature must have assumed its natural will. Again,
the will which is a fruit of sin, and which is called

27 Epist. Honorii cit. 1. c. p. 963.

Honorius 1 two Letters to Sergius. 55

sin in the Scripture, the will which did not exist in
human nature in its state of innocence, is our con-
cupiscence. The Word of God, therefore, by as-
suming our nature could not assume that will ; that
is to say, our concupiscence.

From this clear and conclusive reasoning it is
manifest that Pope Honorius excluded from the In-
carnate Word nothing but the will of the flesh, or, in
other words, our concupiscences. In fact, he quotes
several passages of St. Paul from his Epistle to the
Romans (vii. 17 seq.), and the first to the Corinthians
(xv. 50), in order to prove that after the first trans-
gression a hard struggle arose in our nature between
the fleshly will and that of the mind ; these being
contrary to each other in their tendencies and de-
sires; whereupon he concludes that in Christ there
was no contrariety whatever, since He did not assume
the fleshly will. " Non est itaque assurnpta, sicut
praefati sumus, a Salvatore vitiata natura, qua? repug-

naret legi mentis ejus Nam lex alia et

voluntas diversa non fuit vel contraria Salvatori, quia
supra legein natus est humane conditionis." 28 Ho-
norius foresaw that an exception could be raised
against his assertion founded on the passages of the
gospel, " Not as I will, but as Thou wilt ;" and " I
am not come to do My own will, but the will of Him
that sent Me." He answers the objection, by saying
that the passages quoted and similar texts do not im-
ply any contrariety of wills in Christ, but that they
reveal a peculiar economical design of His assumed
28 Epist. Honorii, 1. c.

56 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

humanity (dispensations, oixovopfag, humanitatis as-
sumptaB). " Tota enim," he continues, "propter nos
dicta sunt, quibus dedit exemplum, ut sequamur vesr
tigia ejus." 29 The Incarnate Word assumed our
humanity, not only that He might be a victim con-
secrated to His Father's glory, but also in order to
become the pattern which we should copy in our-
selves. Now Christ became our pattern because He
practised what He taught, and by His example He
opened the path which we should follow, so that, by
perfect submission of His will to the will of His
Divine Father, He gave us a great example of per-
fect resignation to the will of God. But Christ,
whilst perfectly complying with His Father's will,
had not to endure any struggle with the concupis-
cence of the flesh, which fights against the wishes of
our mind ; He did not feel in Himself any such dis-
orderly feeling, even when His will submitted to
things which, by themselves, are not agreeable to the
original unfallen tendencies of our nature.

The u non quod ego volo" does not imply con-
trariety of wills in Christ, originating from the law
of concupiscence, for this last did not exist in Him ;
but it only points to what would naturally agree
with our inclinations, and please our will. But the
very same language (non quod ego volo) transferred
to 7>ur nature, as it is affected by the Fall, means not
merely what in itself is not pleasant to our lawful
tendencies, but moreover what is positively and
strongly opposed by our fleshly will, which strives to
29 Epist. Honorii, 1. c.

Honoring two Letters to Sergiu*. 57

carry with it the will of our mind. What, then, is
the meaning Honorius intended in the following
passage? "Ista propter nos dicta sunt quibus drdit
exrmplum ut sequainur vestigia ejus; plus mngister
discipulos imbuens, ut non suam unusquisque nos-
trtun, sed potius Domini in omnibus preeferat volun-
tatem." First, it cannot mean that there was no
human will in Christ ; for if Christ had no human
will, how could He afford us example of submission
to God, and how could we follow His footsteps ?
But Honorius plainly asserted that we are to do
this; therefore he at the same time plainly asserted
the existence of a human will in Christ ; because
where there is no distinction of wills, no submission
of any kind can have place. Secondly, according to
Honorius, Christ by the above words taught us to
contradict our fleshly will, in order to submit our
spirit to God. But although Christ could not give
us example of the denial of the fleshly will, which
He had not, He could give us an instruction and
precept ; and these He imparted to us in words
made stronger by His own example of perfect resig-
nation. His example bears on the submission of the
human will to God's will ; His instruction points to
the battle against our concupiscences, in which we
should willingly engage in order to submit our will
to God. Such is the true meaning of the doctrine of
Honorius, when he acknowledges only one will in
Christ's human nature. These are not, as Mr. Renouf
says they are, "subterfuges which will not bear exa-
mination." The explanation which we have given

58 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

will defy the examination of a hundred critics like
Mr. Renouf, and also of all those who fully under-
stand the real question at issue.

On the following page of Mr. Renouf 's pamphlet
we find a remark which betrays a strange ignorance
of the state of the controversy. " If Honorius," he
says, "believed that this was the real question at
issue (the existence in Christ of two human and con-
trary wills), he ought to have condemned Sophronius
for manifestly heretical doctrine." 30 Mr. Eenouf is
quite wrong in attributing to those who have given
the foregoing explanation of the passage in question
the belief that Honorius ever thought that to be the
question at issue. What the Pope says against the
existence of two contrary wills in Christ's human
nature has nothing to do with the Monothelite con-
troversy. But Honorius having spoken, according
to St. Leo's doctrine, of the unity of person in
Christ, and of the diversity of His natures hyposta-
tically united, was brought by his subject to speak
of the integrity of His assumed nature.

Some writers have made it their business to
blacken the memory of Pope Honorius, and have
followed the Monothelite Pyrrhus in distorting the
meaning of the words we have cited " unam volun-
tatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi" in order
to fasten upon them a Monothelite meaning. Hono-
rius is in no way accountable for this : his meaning
was quite different. If Mr. Renouf will deign to
listen to our advice, he will put aside all precon-
30 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 16.

Honor hi* ftro 7>//v/'.s- to Sergius. 59

ceived views, and read carefully the letters of Pope
Honorius: he will soon be convinced that what he
has represented as undeniable is false ; what he has
called alxitrd is right ; what he has qualified as un-
truth is the truth ; and what he has declared to be
Monothelism is the Catholic doctrine. But in his-
torical controversies, when it happens that the per-
versity of man has misrepresented facts, the testi-
mony of contemporaries is the most satisfactory
means of arriving at the truth ; and when the clear
language of documents concurs with the evidence of
contemporaries, no doubt can remain ; in such case
the narrative cannot properly be said to establish the
truth of what we read in the documents, but only to
ratify and confirm it. We have an instance of this
in the controverted passage of Pope Honorius on one
will in Christ. The passage itself tells its own mean-
ing, as we have seen, independently of any external
evidence. The testimony, therefore, of contemporary
authorities must have still greater power to put the
truth of the explanation beyond all doubt. With
this view we can refer to the evidence of St. Maxi-
mus, who after the death of Sophronius was the
great doctor of the Eastern Church, the leader of
the Catholics against the Monothelite faction, the
man who, after having convinced Pyrrhus, the Mo-
nothelite Patriarch of Const aiitinople, that he had
been upholding error, persuaded him to place a
written retractation in the hands of Pope Theodore, 31

31 Conc.Lat. Seer. i. (Labbe,t. vii. p. 91.) Hist. Misrell. Pauli
Diaconi, 1. xviii. ed. Muriir, in t. xcv. PP. LL. p. 1042. Anast.

60 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

the man who suffered persecution and finally mar-
tyrdom for the faith. 32 In like manner we can refer
to the testimony of Pope John IV., who succeeded
Honorius in the pontifical See after the two-months 7
reign of Severinus, and who wrote and addressed to
the Emperor Constantine an apology in favour of
Honorius against the calumnious letter of Patriarch
Pyrrhus. Finally, we can bring forward the evidence
of Abbot John, secretary both to Honorius and to
John IV., who drew up the letter addressed by Ho-
norius to Sergius, and who could not fail to under-
stand its purport correctly, while his character af-
fords us a guarantee of his veracity ; for, as we learn
from St. Maximus, he was a man who had illustrated
all the West with his virtues and religious doctrine. 33
Now St. Maximus, Pope John IV., and Abbot John,
all testify most clearly that Pope Honorius, when as-
serting one will in Christ our Lord, had in view the
sacred humanity only, in which he denied the exist-
ence of two contrary wills. 34 What contemporary
witnesses could be found whose evidence upon this

Eibl. in Vita Tlieodori Papoe, ed. Migne, in t. cxxviii. PP. LL.
p. 723.

12 See Yita et Certamen S. Maximi et Acta ejusdem (in Op.
S. Maximi, t. i. ed. Migne, t. xc. PP. LL. p. 68 seq.).

13 {J,era r&>v aX\ojv avruv KaXuv, xa/ roTg rjjj svffsjSsla^ boyfiatfi
Kafav rriv dvffiv zarapatdpvvuv. Disputatio cum Pyrrho (Op. t. ii.
1. c. p. 329). Tomus dogmaticus ad Marinum Presbyt. (Op. t. ii.
ed. Migne, 1. c. p. 244.)

34 S. Maximus, Tomus cit. ad Marinum, p. 237. Disput. cum
Pyrrho, 1. c. p. 328. Joannis IY. Apologia pro Honorio Papa ad
Constantinum. (Labbe, t. vi. p. 1511 seq.) Abbatis Joannis verba
in Disp. cum Pyrrho, 1. c.

tiro Letters to Sin/' Cl

subject ought to have more weight in the balance of
history and good sense ? The learned Gamier had
good reason not to hesitate to call them ires locu/>/>-
tixximos teste* in favour of the orthodoxy of Pope
Honoring. 35 But in the pages of Mr. Renouf 's pam-
phlet we have prejudice instead of history, passion in
the place of good sense ; hence it is that this writer
sets no value on the evidence of these three wit-
nesses. " The evidence," he says, " of the ires
locupletissimi testes is really that of one man, and
that one an interested and mendacious witness.
St. Maximus, when confronted with the authority
of Pope Honorius, appeals to the evidence of Abbot
John as having really written the letter of Hono-
rius to Sergius, and therefore being the best judge
of its meaning. This very man was also secre-
tary to Pope John IV., and wrote a letter in this
Pope's name, giving a lying account of the contro-
versy, and explaining away the letter of Honorius." 36
This passage is one tissue of impudent assertion, sup-
pression of truth, and blundering error. It is sheer
impudence to apply the terms " interested and men-
dacious witness" and "liar" 37 to the Abbot John,
a man who in his own age was held in such high
esteem both in West and East ; it is a piece of inso-
lence to give the lie to the learned martyr St. Maxi-
mus, who thought so highly of the character of the

35 Gamier S. J. Dissertatio ii. ad Librum Diurnum, n. xxxii. ed.
Mi^ne cit. p. 153.

36 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, pp. 15, 16.

37 In his letter to the Westminster . dated June 20th,
Mr. Eenouf again called Abbot John an interested liar.

62 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

Abbot John as to call him a most holy man
rarov).

Mr. Renouf is further guilty of suppressing the
truth. He has, he tells us, "thoroughly mastered
the literature of the subject," and must therefore
have read the letter of St. Maximus to the priest
Marinus. "Well, in that letter the learned martyr,
" confronted with the authority of Pope Honorius,
does not merely appeal to the evidence of Abbot
John," but fully examines the passage in question.
He shows, from the very expressions of Pope Ho-
norius and the context of his letter, that no Mono-
thelite sense can be given to the doctrine there ex-
pressed; that Honorius evidently speaks of one will
in Christ's humanity; and he quotes a passage from
St. Anastasius, who used the like language when
writing against Apollinaris. 38 Then, after having
discussed the true Catholic meaning of Honorius 7
letter through more than four pages, he refers to
the authority of Abbot Anastasius and Abbot John,
not in order to prove his thesis, but in order to con-
firm it and put it more beyond dispute. 39 In proof
of this we remark that St. Maximus, before adducing
those witnesses, openly declared himself fully per-
suaded that what he gave was the true sense of the
passage of Honorius, and he does not entertain the

38 f^ovovou^i ffvfjLipds'yyoftsvos rw pzydXy ' AQavadw ygdtpovn rdde
VMT ' AvoXivapiou rov dvaasfBov*;, &c. Tomus cit. ad Marmum, 1. c.
p. 240.

19 (3s(3ai6rzpov de {tot rovrov (vovv)
&c. 1. c. p. 244.

Honorius' tiro Letter* to Seryiii*. 63

least suspicion to the contrary. 40 Why did Mr.
Eenouf suppress this evidence of the holy martyr,
and mention only the passage taken from his dis-
pute with Pyrrhus? In that dispute the learned
doctor was satisfied Avith opposing the authority of
the holy and learned John, who had written the
letter of Honorius, to the interpretation of Pyrrhus
and other Byzantine writers who had given it a
wrong meaning. That was at the time sufficient
for the purpose of St. Maximus, who intended to
confute with the authority of a holy and learned
man, the actual writer of the letter of Honorius, the
Byzantine Monothelites, who had put a fanciful in-
terpretation, in accordance with their wishes, upon
the words of Honorius. And he attained his end,
since Pyrrhus, moved by the weight of such a wit-
ness, confessed the mistake of his predecessor and
surrendered. It seems as if Mr. Ronouf was pur-
posely endeavouring to conceal this result. In the
letter, however, addressed to Marinus, St. Maximus
explained the whole question at length. But Mr.
Renouf, with a somewhat lax notion of literary hon-
esty, has kept the evidence hidden from the eyes
of his readers. Finally, is it true that Pope John
or his secretary gave a lying account of the con-
troversy? It is evidently false. The Apologia pro
Honorio Pdj'"t, written in the name of John IV.,
may be divided into two parts: the first points out
the meaning of the passage of the letter of Honorius

' '' /lev tyuyz rov vouv i^gfft CcroXa/A/Sayw, <7rdffr,g oi/ra
1. <.

64 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

which had been misrepresented by Pyrrhus ; the lat-
ter demonstrates the opposition which exists between
the doctrine of Honorius and the error of the Mono-
thelites, which is shown to be a disguised Eutychi-
anism and Severianism.

It is in this second portion that the writer states
the true view of the controversy: a Quia enim unam
voluntatem dicunt divinitatis Christi et humanitatis,
et unam simul operationem, quid aliud nisi quia et
unarn naturam Christi Dei secundum Eutychianam et
Severianam divisionem operari noscuntur ?" 41 This
Apology of Pope John IV., as we said above, was
written when Pyrrhus published an extract from the
letter of Honorius to Sergius, with the purpose of
showing that the Pope had taught only one will in
Christ. The apologist therefore was bound to prove,
first, that Honorius had not asserted the unity of the
will in tli p. divinity and humanity of Christ, but in
the humanity alone, which the Word assumed totally
free from concupiscence ; secondly, that this doctrine
had nothing to do with the error of the Monothelites,
who denied any will and active operation in the hu-
manity of Christ, and necessarily admitted the errors
of Severus.

In the two parts of the Apology he handled suc-
cessively these two points ; and it cannot be said
that in so doing he gave a lying account of the
controversy. Mr. Eenouf has fallen into a gross and
unjustifiable mistake. Moreover, how can it be said

41 Apologia pro Honorio Papa. (Labbe, t. vi. p. 1514.)

//, two Lrtfcr* t<> /v/y////.v. (;.")

that the evidence of St. Maximus, of Pope John IV.,
and of Abbot John, is really that of one man ? It
cannot be maintained that either the Saint or the
Pope wrote in the name of the Abbot John, nor
that they threw upon him the responsibility of their
assertions. Each of them pledged his own credit
in the defence of Pope Honorius which they put
forward. Their language is absolute and without
reserve, as became men who were thoroughly fa-
miliar with the whole controversy. It is absurd,
therefore, to assert that " their evidence is really
that of one man." But we must not feel surprise
at the dogmatic manner in which Mr. Renouf dis-
poses of the external evidence in favour of the ortho-
doxy of Pope Honorius ; he has asserted or sup-
pressed exactly what Dr. Dollinger in his well-known
pamphlet Die Papst Fabeln had already asserted or
suppressed. It is not so much the English School-
Inspector as the Munich Professor that treats with
so much contempt the evidence of St. Maximus no
less than that of Pope John and of the Abbot John ;
that stigmatises the latter as a liar ; that regards as
absurd the explanation given by Pope John of the
doctrine of Honorius ; that suppresses what St. Maxi-
mus wrote of Honorius in his dogmatic treatise
addressed to Marinus, as well as the conversion
of Pyrrhus and his retractation, caused by the au-
thoritative evidence of Abbot John, quoted by the
saintly martyr; and that speaks of the triple evidence
we have adduced as being that of one man. 1 - Mr.

Die Papst Fabeln, p. 134.

66 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

Renouf indeed tells us that he had not seen the
Papst Fabeln before he wrote his Condemnation of
Pope Honorius; we must therefore conclude that
some great similarity of character exists between
the two writers, which has led to their independent
adoption of the same line of argument, which derives
what force it has wholly from the same baseless
assertions and unwarrantable suppressions.

Mr. Eenouf was not content with finding Mono-
thelite tenets in the vexed passage of the letter of
Honorius, and with casting contempt on all those
who maintained its orthodox interpretation, but he
also thought he saw in the confession of Honorius
an identity of idea with the Ectliesis and the
Typus ; and he went so far as to assert that
" one of the most important parts of the Ecthesis
is copied verbatim from the letter of Honorius." 43
His friend Dr. Dollinger had said before him that
the doctrine of Honorius had given origin to the
two imperial decrees called the Ecthesis of Hera-
clius and the Typus of Constans, 44 because, as he
imagined, the letter of Honorius gave the Emperor
ground to believe that the Roman See would not
oppose the doctrinal rule of the Ecthesis. This is
the whole foundation for what Mr. Renouf asserts as

i

to the identity of doctrine of the letter of Honorius
and of the two imperial edicts. But it is a mere

43 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, pp. 14, 15, 23 note.

44 " Diese dem Sergius und den iibrigen Gonnern und Anhan-
gern des Monotheletismus willkommene Lehre'des Honorius fiihrte
zu den beiden kaiserlichen Edikten, der Ekthesis und dem Typus."
1. c. p. 133.

Honoriutf two Letters to Sergius. 67

calumny, which can be quickly dispelled by simply
confronting the Pope's letter with the imperial de-
crees. The Ecthesis of Heraclius, it cannot be denied,
contains no more error than what is insinuated in
the letter of Sergius to Pope Honorius, and other
missives of the same prelate ; but it is in perfect
contradiction to the doctrine expressed by Honorius
in his letters to Sergius. This Pope, as we have
proved above, clearly taught a twofold operation in
Christ, one belonging to the divinity, and the other
to the humanity ; although the Person of Christ
being one, the Operator is one. If he speaks of one
will in Christ, he refers to the humanity, where
there cannot be two contrary wills in a state of
struggle and reluctance. The Ecthesis, on the
other hand, maintains a doctrine altogether opposite.
It states that all the operation of Christ, divine and
h in nan, must be attributed to the Word Incarnate
alone, and therefore it did not permit any other pro-
fession of faith. Moreover it declares, in conformity
with that erroneous and heretical tenet, that, if we
confess two operations in Christ, we must necessarily
admit in His Person two contrary wills ; and hence it
openly maintains one will only in Christ. 45

AVe are not anxious to enlarge on this exposition
by pointing out the contradictions to be found in the

45 Ecthesis Ilcraclii, inConc.Lat. Seer. iii. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 204.)
yap xa/ e-~sffQai ravrri rb xai dvo <7rp$ff[3svsiv Qs\7i/j,ara evavriug
; aXXrjXa s%6vruv. . . . xat svrtvdsv dvo rou -rwavria 6'sXovroz
dvffffsfteg vxdpy^i xai aXXorpiov rov ffliffnavixov $6y-
oi):\> . . . ev QsXq/Aa, rov Kup/oD TJ/AUV 'iTjtfoD Xg/tfroD
Qsov 6AfcoXoyoD//,=f. 1. c. p. 205.

68 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

Ecthesis, a document in which the Patriarch Sergius,
its author, summed up his errors and made them a
law of the State. All who read this section will
readily acknowledge that we find in that iniquitous
document the mind of Sergius rather than that of
Honorius. Mr. Renouf, however, is under an obli-
gation of proving that the most important passages
of the Ecthesis are taken verbatim from the letter
of Honorius.

Let us pass on to consider the case of the Typus
of Constans. Mr. Renouf assures us that the position
taken up- in this document is exactly that of Pope
Honorius, whose authority, he says, it followed.
This time Mr. Renouf chances to be more moderate
in his language than Dr. Dollinger, who has charged
Honorius with having gone far beyond the limits
of the Typus. 46 Nevertheless, both Mr. Renouf and
Dr. Dolluiger agree in this, that Honorius as well as
the Typus prohibit the discussion of one or two wills
and operations. We, however, maintain, on the other
side, that their difference concerns what is substantial
and peculiar to each of them.

The Typus was the work of the Monothelite Pa-
triarch Paul, successor of Pyrrhus, but it was pub-
lished in the name of the Emperor Constans. This
prince, with the purpose of furthering his political
views, usurped a right which belongs to the supreme
ecclesiastical authority alone a right to which the
civil powers are bound to yield respect, and cannot
control by the power of the sword. Constans, by en-
46 Die Papst Fabeln, p. 136.

fir,) />//,-/> /,/ >V/v//"*. 69

forcing the Typus, and substituting it for the Ecthe-
sis, made himself a most powerful instrument of the
Monothelite faction. The Typus, indeed, has an ap-
pcn ranee of placing the doctrinal element more in the
background, and of aiming only at putting an end to
violent disputes, and restoring peace to the Church.
It does not appear to favour either Monothelism
or Dithelism ; it decides in favour of neither, but
strictly and under the most heavy penalties forbids
the holding and defending of either of the two con-
trary views of the controversy, and prohibits all fur-
ther contention on these points. 47 We need say
nothing here of the injustice and tyranny of the
prince who signed and sanctioned that decree. We
will consider the Typus in its doctrinal purport only,
and with reference to the Monothelite dogmas. The
Typus contains the words "operation" and "will"
(ivgsys/a, 0sto^a), in the sense of the physical, in-
ternal power of nature, and natural active faculty.
Therefore, by forbidding the profession of two ope-
rations and wills in Christ, it not only places a
Catholic doctrine on the same level with the heresy
which admits one single operation and will in Christ,
but it also forbids the subjects of the Empire to pro-
fess in our Lord what is essential to the existence of
His two natures; and consequently it forbids the
profession of the faith of Chalcedon and of the dog-
matical letter of Pope Leo, in which that essential
doctrine is expressly stated. The Typus, then, be-

47 See the Typus, in Cone. Lat. Seer. iv. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 237
seq.)

70 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

sides the unchristian indifferentism, which was the
root from which it sprang, embodied a skilful arti-
fice to check for the time being the assertion of the
Catholic truth, in order to open the way to heresy;
and this after the solemn condemnation pronounced
by the Popes Severinus and John IV. against the er-
rors of the Monothelites. The character, therefore, of
the Typus was manifestly heretical, and it deserved
to be stigmatised as blasphemous and most impious
by the Later an Council under Martin I.

Now we would ask Mr. Renouf and Dr. Dollinger
to point out to us the place in which Pope Honorius
forbade the profession of two wills in Christ. We
would remind both of what we have said in the be-
ginning of this section, namely, that Honorius not
only never forbade the profession of two operations
in Christ our Lord, but also declared it to be a
duty of every Catholic to believe and confess them,
according to St. Leo's doctrine. We would inform
them that when Honorius suggests the expediency of
refraining from the expression, " one or two opera-
tions," he did not employ the word "operation," or
ivg^yg/a, in the sense of the internal power of a nature,
but in the sense of its external acts; which, if referred
to the person, may be summed up into one operation,
as the operator is one ; but if referred to the two
natures, may be said to be two or more operations,
according to the multiple mode of working of the
two natures. Hence he says it is useless to inquire
whether, on account of the working of Christ's divin-
ity and humanity, there should be said to be one or

Jlonorius ftco Letter* to Sergius. 71

two derived operations; for this reason he adds that
there is no canon of a Council in the matter, and
that the Scripture teaches the contrary; and this is
why he asserts that the expression, " one or two ope-
rations," is a novelty which may turn out dangerous
to the faith. 48

In the whole of this passage, as we have proved
above, the Pope does not allude to the physical in-
ternal operations of Christ, but to the external acts.
Dr. Dollinger, we have already said, himself acknow-
ledged what we here state; and it is somewhat re-
markable that his admiring disciple Mr. Eenouf has
not profited by his master's lesson, and so escaped
falling into a lower depth of blunder than the author
of the Papst Fabeln has reached.

Let us conclude. The Typus prohibits the con-
fession of two operations in Christ ; Honorius com-
mands that they should be confessed and preached.
The Typus speaks of operations (ingywtv) in the
sense of substantial virtue of nature (otxrw&iK \vk%-
yg/ci) ; Honorius speaks of them in the sense of
acts, and distinguishes between the operation peculiar
to each nature. The Typus prohibits the confession
of a doctrine of faith with reference both to the two
natural operations and to the two wills of Christ ;
Honorius merely advises abstinence from forms of
expression which do not belong to the ecclesiastical
dogma. Does all this show an identity of tenet, and
not rather an essential opposition?

From what we have said of the orthodoxy of
48 Epist. i. Honorii, in Cone. vi. act. xii. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 963.)

72 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

Pope Honorius, our readers may conclude that the
position of our adversaries is quite untenable ; and
that there exists such an accumulation of various
evidence in favour of the Pontiff, that the mainten-
ance of the opposite view implies a large amount
of obstinate prejudice. We shall, however, be re-
paid if we institute a still further inquiry as to the
opinions held by the contemporaries of Honorius
regarding the faith of the Pope. And first let us
consider what was the judgment of Sergius, the
Patriarch of Constantinople. It is undeniable that
this prelate was convinced of the thorough orthodoxy
of Honorius, and of his being in no way inclined to
the Monoth elite views. Had not this been so, Ser-
gius would have made a point of circulating the
letters of Honorius throughout the East, whereas he
withdrew them as much as possible from the know-
ledge of the public. If it be true that the doctrine
held by Honorius is really identical with that of the
Ecthesis, why did not the writer of that document
claim the support of the papal authority, or why was
its publication delayed until after the death of the
very Pope who is said to have been its patron ? 49 But
we need not confine ourselves to negative arguments,
for the records of the time afford us more positive
testimonies. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem,
and the great leader of the Catholics in the struggle
against the Monothelite error, must have been ac-

49 Honorius I. died in 638 ; the Ecthesis was published in
639, nearly as soon as the Pope's death was known in Constanti-
nople,

fim Zr/Arx to &'n/t'it*. 78

quaiiited with the letters and teaching of Pope Hono-
rius. Yet Sophronius, as we have seen, sent Stephen,
Bishop of Dora, to Honorius, to urge upon the Pope
the necessity of passing a definitive sentence on the
disputed points. We have quoted above the terms
in which he spoke of the Roman See, " where the
foundations are laid of the orthodox faith." Now if
Sophronius entertained the least suspicion that Pope
Honorius was himself infected with the error, he
would certainly not have sent to him a solemn em-
bassy in order to obtain his definitive judgment in a
matter of faith. Nor must it be thought that any
different opinion was held by St. Maximus, the suc-
cessor of Sophronius in the defence of the Catholic
cause, and heir alike of his doctrine and his zeal.

The Patriarch Pyrrhus had already spread abroad
a most grievous calumny against the memory of Ho-
norius. Extracts from his letters were being circu-
lated both in the East and in the West, and were ex-
citing suspicions against the faith of that Pope; hence
Maximus, as the leader of the Catholics against the
Monothelite faction, was bound to make public the
common persuasion with regard to the doctrine and
orthodoxy of Honorius. Now St. Maximus declared
himself the apologist of the Pope whose orthodoxy he
defended in his dispute with Pyrrhus ; he returned to
the subject in his dogmatic Tomus to the Priest Mari-
nus ; he insisted on the same point in the Epistle " ad
Pet rum illustrem." In this letter he represented Pope
Honorius as not only unstained with any blemish of
Monothelism, but also as one of the zealous Pontiffs

74 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

who resisted that heresy, and endeavoured to bring
its author into the path of truth. 50 After proof of
this, the assertion of Dr. Dollinger must seem strange
indeed when he says that, whilst all the West, and
principally Rome, arose vigorously to oppose and
condemn Monothelism, PopeHonorius alone showed
favour to it, and was on this account abandoned by
all. 51 But if so, how is it that the Romans, after his
death, compared him with St. Gregory the Great for
his doctrine as well as for his virtues; and expressed
sentiments of praise and admiration for him in an
epigraph engraven on his sepulchre? 52 Had they
entertained the least doubt of his orthodoxy, nothing

50 " Qu3e hos non rogavit Ecclesia? quis pins et orthodoxus noil
supplicavit antistcs, cessare illos a propria hreresi clamando et ob-
testando 1 Quid autem et divinus Honorius, quid vero post ilium
Severinus senex, quid denique et is qui post liunc extitit sacer
Joannes 1" Ex Epist. ad Petrum illustrem. (Op. t. ii. ed. Migne,
1. c. p. 143.)

51 Die Papst Fabeln, p. 134.

52 " Pastorem magnum laudis pia prsemia lustrant,

Cui fuiictus Petri hac vice sunima tenet ;
Effulget tumulis nam praesul Honorius istis,

Cujus magnanimum nomen honorque manet.
Sedis Apostolicse meritis nam jura gubernans,

Disperses revocat, optima lucra refert,
Utque sagax ammo divino in carmine pollens,

Ad vitam pastor ducere novit oves.
Histria nam dudum sacro sub scliismate fessa,

Ad statuta patrum teque monente redit . . .
Quern doctrina potens, quern sacne regula vitae

Pontincuni pariter sanxit habere decus,
Sanctiloqui semper in te commenta magistri

Emicuere tui tamque fecunda nimis.
Nam Gregorii tanti vestigia justi

Dum sequeris cupiens et meritumque geris," &c.

llonoriuf? two Letters to Sergius. 75

of the kind would have been written on his tomb,
nor would the Romans have immortalised with lying-
praise the name of a heretic. Lastly, the successors
of I lonorius in the chair of St. Peter lent their au-
thority to confirm the high character for orthodoxy
and virtue which the public voice gave to Honorius.
Thus Pope John IV. testifies to the scandal given to
all Christendom when the heretical leader Pyrrhus
dared to appeal to Honorius as a supporter of his
errors. 53 Pope Martin opening the Lateran Council,
did not hesitate to assert that his predecessors had
most constantly resisted the Monothelite errors, and
had endeavoured to bring their authors into the path
of truth. 54 To speak thus of his predecessors with-
out exception or limitation would have been impos-
sible, had he believed that Honorius betrayed the
Catholic truth ; especially seeing that Pyrrhus had
already charged Honorius with Monothelism, and that
his successor Paul, in his letter to Pope Theodore,
had appealed to Honorius as a witness in favour of
the same heresy. 55 Under these circumstances the
declaration of Pope Martin was designed to dissipate

53 Apologia pro Honorio. (Labbe, t. vi. p. 1514.)

54 In Cone. Lat. Seer. i. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 94.) "Ideoque in
scripto vel sine scripto orthodoxonun preces minime despicientes
Apostolicse memorise nostri decessores non destiterunt praxlictis viris
divi-rsis temporibus consultissime scribentes et tarn rogantes, quam-
que regnlariter increpantes, iiecnon per apocrisiarios suos, ut dic-
tum est, per hoc maxiinc destinatos prresentialiter admonentes et
contestantes quatenus proprium. emendarent novitatis commentum,
atque catholicam fidem catholicse ecclesia3 remearent."

55 Epist. Patr. Pauli ad Theodorum, in Cone. Lat. Seer. iv.
(Labbe, 1. c. p. 233.)

76 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

all doubt regarding the orthodoxy of Honorius. His
general assertion, considering the time in which it was
made, is equivalent to what St. Maximus advanced in
favour of Honorius in his Epistle "ad Petrum illus-
trem." Pope Agatho also shows himself equally con-
vinced of the orthodoxy of Honorius. In his dogmatic
letter addressed to the Emperor Pogonatus, which was
read in the Sixth Synod, he testified to the solicitude
of all his predecessors in repressing the new heresy,
and he mentions especially their suggesting silence to
the partisans of error. 56 By these words he undoubt-
edly referred to Honorius ; and although he did not
say whether the economy adopted by Honorius had
been well-advised and calculated to attain its end,
yet it is undeniable that he gave the most favourable
evidence of the orthodoxy of that Pope. Had he felt
any misgivings on that score, he could not have classed
Honorius with John IV., Theodore, and Martin L,
as one of those who opposed Monothelism ; he could
not have said that Honorius by his policy of silence
intended to check the Monothelite heresy, had he
thought him a Monothelite. So then, the orthodoxy
of Pope Honorius was publicly and repeatedly testi-
fied to by all his contemporaries till the very opening
-of the Sixth Council. Throughout that interval no

56 " Unde et Apostolicae memoriae meae parvitatis praedecessores,

dominicis doctrinis instruct! iiunquam neglexerant eos

(Monothelitas) hortari atque obsecrando commonere, ut a pravi
dogmatis haeretico errore, saltern tacendo desisterent" Epist. Aga-
tlionis Papae ad Constantinum, in act. iv. cone. vi. (Lahbe, t. vii.
p. 663.)

Honoring two Letters to Sergius. 77

one Catholic called it in question, while it was ex-
pressly defended nirnmst the attacks of Pyrrhus and
Paul by the principal leaders and martyrs of the
orthodox party, and the Popes, who were most ener-
getic in their opposition to the heresy.

We must here notice a difficulty raised by Mr.
Eenouf. " The fact," he says, " that Pope Martin I.
and the Lateran Council heard Honorius quoted in
a 4 dogmatic letter' as an authority for Monothelism
without any contradiction being offered, is a sure sign
that his cause was no longer held to be defensible." 57
The same remark had been made also by Dr. Dollin-
ger, who seems desirous of suggesting some charge of
injustice against the Lateran Council. 58 We must,
however, confess that Dr. Dollinger in his way of
putting the point was somewhat more honest than
Mr. Eenouf. First, this last-named writer mentions a
" dogmatic letter," in which Honorius is quoted as
an authority for Monothelism. Allusion is here made
to the letter of the Patriarch Paul, the author of the
Typus ; but we do not know any ground for assert-
ing that this letter was ever called "dogmatic" by the
Lateran Council. Certainly the Bishops who required
it to be read called it simply " letter" (orjffroXJp).
Pope Martin ordered to be read u the letter of Paul"
(epistolam Pauli). Theophylact, the prothonotary
of the Apostolic See, declared that he had in his
hands the " letter of Paul." The letter itself bears no
other title than " letter of Paul of Constantinople to

57 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 17.

58 Die Papst Fabeln, pp. 134-136.

78 Orthodox Doctrine contained in

Pope Theodore." 59 The Bishop Deusdedit, speaking
of the document, called it a " letter." 00 The epithet
" dogmatic" does not appear anywhere. Again, Mr.
Eenouf does not tell us that the u dogmatic" letter in
which Honorius is quoted as an authority for Mono-
thelism, is the letter of a Monothelite Bishop, the
author of the Typus, who, like Pyrrhus, calumni-
ated that Pope. Thirdly, he does not notice (nor
does Dr. Dollinger) that in the letter quoted the
Patriarch Paul not only appeals to Honorius but also
to St. Gregory Nazianzen, to St. Athanasius, to St.
Cyril of Alexandria, and in short to all the Fathers
and Doctors of the Church, as partisans of the Mono-
thelite view. 61 Now we may retort the argument
against Mr. Renouf in this manner. The Fathers of
the Lateran Council heard without any contradiction
the names of St. Gregory, St. Cyril, St. Athanasius,
and the rest, quoted as authorities for Monothelism,
and yet no one believes this to be a sure sign that
the cause of these holy Doctors was no longer held to
be defensible : in the same manner then in the case of
Honorius. This is not all : there is another argument
which may help to show the rashness of the inference
so confidently drawn by Dr. Dollinger, and adopted
with equal confidence by his pupil. Pope Martin
beyond doubt well knew what the Byzantine Patri-
arch Paul had written against Honorius in his letter to
Pope Theodore, and on this account, as we said above,

59 Cone. Lat. Seer. iv. p. 227 seq.

60 Ib. p. 235.

61 In Cone. Lat. Seer. iv. (Labbe, vii. p. 233.)

llonorhix tiro Letters to Sergius. 79

after the opening of the Council, he made a solemn
declaration in favour of all his predecessors, in order
to reject beforehand the infamous charge of the Mono-
thelite champion. Moreover, the Pope with all the
Synod condemned Paul and his letter, but no one
thought it necessary to mention the name of Hono-
rius. This argument will gain still more strength if
we remark that Pope Martin, after the opening of
the Synod, explicitly declared that it was his intention
and that of the whole Council to discover and bring
to light all the authors of the Monothelite heresy. 62
He mentions the four Patriarchs, Sergius, Cyrus,
Pyrrhus, and Paul, but he does not use a word
directed against Honorius. In the course of the
Council itself many Libetti were read, all concerning
the Monothelite controversy. We may consult those
of Stephen of Dora from Palestine; 63 of the Monks
and Abbots of Africa, of Palestine and Armenia ; 64 of
Victor Bishop of Carthage ; 65 of Sergius of Cyprus ; 66
of Maurus of Ravenna ; 67 the Synodical Letters of the
Councils of Numidia, of Mauritania, and of Byza-
cene. 68 In all these Libelli and Synodical Letters
the Roman See is spoken of as the foundation of
faith, as the teacher of truth, as the centre of Catholic
doctrine: 69 in all of them the four Patriarchs are

62 Cone. Lat. Seer. i. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 86.) " Oportet eos in
aperto fieri manifestos."

63 Cone. Lat. Seer. ii. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 106.)

64 Hi. (Lal)l)o, 1. c. p. 117.) C5 Ib. p. 155 seq.

66 Ib. p. 125 seq. C7 Ib. p. 130 seq. " s II.. pp. 131, 1'2.
Lb. pp. 108, 118, 159, &c.

80 The Sixth Synod and the

unanimously denounced, together with other parti-
sans and promoters of the new heresy. But we find
no allusion, direct or indirect, to Pope Honorius.
This omission cannot be explained except by sup-
posing that no one considered the doctrine of Hono-
rius deserving of such denunciation. We must not,
then, follow Mr. Renouf in believing that at the time
of the Lateran Council the cause of Honorius was
held to be no longer defensible; on the contrary, it
was then considered that no plausible ground could
be found for any charge of heresy against him.

IV.

The Sixth Synod and the Condemnation of Pope
Honorius.

The Eastern Church had been kept continually
in a state of terrible confusion for about sixty years
by the Monothelite faction (622-680) ; and the impe-
rial power, which had been led by considerations of
worldly interest to abet the heresy, had reaped the
natural fruit of its rebellion against the Church in
domestic strife and interior weakness. The Ecthe-
sis of the Patriarch Sergius, published by the Em-
peror Heraclius, had increased the general confusion ;
and the Typus of the Patriarch Paul, to which the
Emperor Constans gave the force of an imperial law,
had failed to restore calm and concord in the pro-

Condemnation of Pope Honorius. 81

vinces of the East : both these documents, the Ec-
thesis and the Typus, by favouring Monothelism,
had rendered the state of affairs more desperate than
ever, and spread still further the internal cancer which
had for so long a time been corroding the vital organs
of the Byzantine Empire. In fact, whilst the Em-
perors and their Patriarchs were attacking Catholic
doctrine and abetting schism, the Greek provinces
were being torn from the unity of the Empire; and
now the Emperors, who had put forth all their zeal
against the supporters of the Catholic dogma, proved
powerless to resist the enemies of their people. The
Popes on their side had spared no means in order to
recall the erring factions back to the path of faith
and unity. They had repeatedly condemned the Ec-
thesis and the Typus, as well as the authors of the
Monothelite heresies. After many provincial Synods
had been fruitlessly held at Rome against the new
error, Martin I. summoned a Universal Council in the
Lateran Palace (654), where, at the head of 105
Bishops, he anathematised the errors of Monothelism
with their authors, and formally defined the doctrine
delivered by Catholic tradition as a rule of faith, thus
binding the conscience of the whole Christian world.

o

The authority attributed in the Church to this Synod
was so great, that it was inserted after the four pre-
vious General Councils in the Pontifical Profession oi
Faith. 1 But its dogmatic decrees were far from being
received by the Emperor Constans with faith and

1 Liber Diurnus Roman! PP. c. ii. tit. 9, in iii. Prof, fidei.
(Migne, PP. LL. t. cv. p. 58.)

G

The Sixth Synod and the

obedience; on the contrary, they increased his hos-
tility to the Catholic doctrine, and gave rise to a
confusion greater than any previous. The records
of history tell us of the sufferings of the illustrious
Pontiff Martin; of the great champion of the faith
Maximus, with his two disciples both named Atha-
nasius; and of the other glorious martyrs who at that
tune received their crowns at the hands of the impe-
rial heretic. The blood of those heroic confessors
secured the rapid triumph of the faith. Shortly after
their glorious martyrdom Constans received the re-
compense of his crimes in a miserable death, 2 and the
state of the Eastern Church underwent a complete
change. Constantine Pogonatus, a prince nurtured
in Catholic principles, took the helm of the Empire,
and without delay applied to the See of Eome for
the restoration of Catholic union in the Oriental
Church. He addressed a letter to Pope Donus, re-
questing him to send legates to Constantinople, in
order to put an end to the Monothelite controversy
and restore peace to the Empire. But when the
imperial letters arrived at Rome, Pope Agatho had
already succeeded Donus. Agatho received the pro-
posal of the Emperor with favour, and accordingly in
.680 he assembled a Council of 125 Bishops at Rome,
with the purpose of choosing his legates and of set-
tling the points of faith to be solemnly decreed in
the (Ecumenical Synod. Then by the authority of
the Pope the Sixth General Council was opened at

2 Cedrenus, Hist. Comp. t. i. p. 763. ed. Bonn. Hist. Miscella.
1. xix. p. 1052. (PP. LL. Migne, t. xcv.)

Condemnation of Pope Tlonorius. 83

Constantinople on the 7th day of Xovember in the
year 680. The Emperor Constantino in this Synod
held the presidency of honour, and sat in the centre
of the assembly, as the great Constantine had done at
Xk'ipa. But it would be most wrong to think that
he held the presidency of jurisdiction and by right.
We should be surprised to hear Mr. Renouf avow
such an opinion ; but if he does not hold it, we do not
understand why he is so anxious to inform us that
u the Emperor presided in all the Sessions at which he
was present;" and u that he had his way in all things
when present;" that during his absence he was repre-
sented by two patricians and two ex -consuls, and that
" Bishops were very small persons indeed." 3 And
again, that "the legates of the Pope and of the See
of Jerusalem sat on the left of the Emperor, the
Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, &c. on the
right." 4

We are thankful to Mr. Renouf for this valuable
information, for which he has kindly found room in
his notable twenty-six pages against Pope Honorius.
But if he thinks that the Legates of the Pope did not
really preside in the Council, because they sat on the
left of the Emperor, he is grossly deceived. This
false impression will be at once dispelled if we merely
look at the list of the signatures of the members of
the Council appended to the definition of faith and
to the Prosphonetic Letter sent to the Emperor. In
both these documents the names of the Pontifical
Legates are the first in the list, preceding even the
? The Condemnation of Pope Ilonorius, pp. 2, 10. 4 1. c. p. 2.

84 The Sixth Synod and the

names of all the Eastern Patriarchs. On the other
hand, the name of the Emperor is written in the for-
mula of faith below those of all the Bishops ; and by
his signature he only expresses his consent to the de-
cree, without the least show of authority in sanction-
ing a definition of faith. 5 But the Bishops declare that
they sign the formula of faith defining it ; and the
Legates signed in the name of Pope Agatho, whose
authority they represented. 6 Therefore the presi-
dency of the Emperor was merely honorary, without
any indication of power or jurisdiction. Constantine
Pogonatus could not forget the traditions of the Em-
pire. His predecessors had openly declared, that if
they attended the general assembly of the Bishops,
they did it, not in order to display any authority of
their own in ecclesiastical matters, but with the pur-
pose of shielding the authority of the Fathers with
that of the Empire. 7 If he, like his predecessors,
misled by the example of Constantine I., thought it
his right to occupy the first place in the general
synods, neither he nor they harboured the idea of
having jurisdiction over them as presidents. It is
true that the writer of the history of the Sixth
Synod, by the expression 7rgox,a0?){jtjzvov Kavcravrivov
-may seem to mean a under the presidency of Con-

5 Cone. Constant, iii. act. xviii. (Labbe, t. vii. pp. 1063 seq.,
1094 seq.) avsyvufAtv xai ffuvyveffafAtv (p. 1080).

6 6^/rfa vftlyga-^a, . . . rlv ro<7rov sTey^uv 'Aydduvog . . . vttypa-^a.

7 See in especial manner Allocutio Marciani Imp. in act. iv.
Cone. Chalced. (Labbe, t. iv. p. 1476.) His words are quoted by
Gratian in his Decretum, p. i. dist. xcvi. can. ii.

Condemnation of Pope Honorius. 85

stantine;" 8 but irgoxuM&w does not mean properly
u to preside," but simply "to sit down before," or
"in front" "to sit in public." In fact, in the
twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth sessions of the
s; m 10 Council, when the Emperor was absent, the
same word is referred to his seat ; 9 and of course
the seat does not preside, though it was placed in
an honourable position. Therefore in the fifteenth
session the writer, when speaking of the imperial
seat during the absence of Constantine, uses the
word urgorefetp'svov.

But it is idle to insist further upon a subject
which we believe we have already made clear enough.
With regard to the left side of the Emperor being
appointed for the Papal Legates, Mr. Eenouf is, as
usual, at fault : it is well known that in those times
the left side was regarded as the more honourable.
According to the ancient Ordo Romanus, in public
ecclesiastical assemblies the Bishops were to sit on
the left, and the priests on the right. 11

A more important question now demands an
answer, the solution of which will cast great light
on the subject in hand. Pope Agatho, after the
council held at Rome, sent his Legates to the (Ecu-
menical Synod assembled in Constantinople. What
character were these Legates meant to represent in
that assembly? In other words, were they sent by

8 Cone. Constantinop. iii. act. i. (Labbe, t. vii. p. G28), &c.

9 Labbe, 1. c. pp. 942, 972, 1005. KpoxaQriplvov rov <re(3a<rpiurd-
rou 2tfffoy, &o. 10 Labbe, 1. c. p. 1025.

11 See Leo Allatius I)e perpetua Consensione Eccl. Occ. et
Orient. 1. i. c. vi. v. vi. Colonia?, p. 9-4 SIMJ.

86 TJie Sixth Synod and the

the Roman Pontiff in order to learn from the Fathers
of Constantinople what doctrine of faith was to be
believed ? or to enforce the definitions of the Apos-
tolic See, and to procure the solemn confirmation of
them by the lawful submission of the (Ecumenical
Synod ? For believers in Papal Infallibility there
can be no doubt on this question ; and it were to be
wished that all Catholics agreed with us in seeing
that the mission entrusted to the Legates must have
been of the latter nature. The predecessors of Agatho
had repeatedly condemned Monothelism, and had an-
athematised its supporters. In particular Martin I.
had already in the Lateran Council defined in the
most solemn manner the Catholic teaching concern-
ing the two wills and operations in Christ, and had
published his decrees as the standard of faith. To
send Papal Legates to the (Ecumenical Council in
order to discuss anew points of faith which had been
already settled, with the intention that they should
alter their views, if necessary, according to the new
researches to be made in the Council, would have
been nothing short of denying Papal Infallibility, by
reducing the Universal Doctor of the Church to the
rank of any other Bishop, and allowing his solemn
judgments of faith to be examined and reformed.
But Pope Agatho, like all his predecessors, although
he lived six centuries before the complete separation
of the East from the West, and ten before the rise
of the school of Suarez and Zaccaria, had the firm
consciousness of his own infallibility, which he re-
garded as a doctrine of the whole Catholic Church.

Condemnation of Pope Honoriu*. 87

Consequently he sent his Legates with rigorous or-
ders that they should only explain and enforce in the
council the traditional doctrine of his Apostolic See,
as it had been laid down by his own predecessors. 11
Their mission was not to discuss or examine, as
if the matter were doubtful and uncertain, but to
set before all in a brief manner the certain and un-
changeable doctrine of the Roman See. 12 Pope Aga-
tho gives a reason for these instructions, and this is
the infallibility which had been divinely conferred on
the See of Peter. Therefore he openly asserts that
through that supernatural gift his See had always
been exempt from any error whatever. On this ac-
count he declares tha1> all who wish to save their
souls must unanimously profess the formula of faith
which rests on the apostolic tradition of Peter, who
is the foundation of the Church. 13 Consistently with
this, he denounces in the severest terms all who
reject this formula, as guilty of a betrayal of the
faith, and as deserving a rigorous judgment at the
tribunal of Christ. 14 He judges all to be enemies of

11 " Ut nilnl praesumant augere, minuere, vel mutare, seel tra-
ditionem hujus Apostolicrc Sedis, ut a prredecessoribus Apostolicis
Pontificibus instituta ost, sinceriter enarrare." Epist. Agatlionis
Pupii- ad ( 'oust. Pogonat, Imp. in act. iv.. Cone. Const, iii. (Lalilu 1 ,
t. vii. ]>. :>.).)

1-2 "Non lumen tamqnani de inccrtis contendere, sed ut certa
atque immutabilia eomprndiosa ddinitionc proferre." Epist. Agath.
Papa- ft Syii. Hi mi. ad Synodinn Sextain, in act. iv. cone. vi.
(Ltbbe, 1. c. p. 714.)

13 "Quas (Ecclesia Rom.) ejus (Petri Apostoli) gratia et pnosidio
ab omni erron- illibata pcrmanct," &c. Epist. Agath. ad Const.
Imp. 1. c. (Labbe, 1. c. p. COS.)

14 Epist. Agath. cit. 1. c. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 703.)

88 The Sixth Synod and the

the Catholic and Apostolic confession, and subject
to perpetual condemnation, who shall refuse to teach
the doctrine which he propounds ; 15 and over and
over again he refers to the infallibility of the Apos-
tolic See as to a pledge and justification of his utter-
ance. He declares that all the orthodox Fathers
and all the General Councils had always venerated
the teaching of the Eoman See, and entirely and
faithfully adhered to it ; that it had been calumniated
and persecuted by none but heretics. 16 He solemnly
asserts that it had never at any time declined from
the straight path of truth, but that it had always
been preserved from error since the Apostles placed
in it the deposit of revealed doctrine ; and that it
should always so last till the end of time, pure and
immaculate in its teaching. He alleges in proof of
this the promise made by our Lord to Peter, that
his faith should never fail. 17 Such is the language
with which Pope Agatho and his Synod addressed
the Emperor and the Sixth Council. The Roman
Pontiff does not expect from the latter a new defini-

15 Epist. Synod. Agath. cit. 1. c. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 715.)

16 Epist. Agath. ad Const. 1. c. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 659.)

17 " Quae (Ecclesia Rom.) ejus (Petri) annitente praesidio nun-
.quam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est." (Labbe,

1. c. p. 659.) "Quae (Ecclesia Rom.) per Dei Omnipotentis gratiam
a tramite Apostolicae traditionis nunquam errasse probabitur, nee
haereticis novitatibus depravata succubuit, sed ut ab exordio fidei
Christianas percepit ab auctoribus suis Apostolorum Christi Princi-
pibus illibata fine tenus permanet, secundum ipsius Domini Salva-
toris divinam pollicitationem, quam suorum discipulorum Principi
in sacris evangeliis fatus est; Petre, Petre inquiens," &c. (Luc.
xxii. 31, 32.) Ib. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 662.)

ii of Pope llonorius. 89

tion of faith. He points out to the Bishops that they
should believe and profess, and confirm by their de-
crees, the traditional infallible doctrine of the Roman
See, which all his predecessors had always taught.

The language of Pope Agatho is worthy of a
successor of St. Peter, but it in no wise differed from
that which the Roman Pontiffs used in other times
on such occasions. If we read with attention the
letters of Pope Agatho to the Emperor and to the
Sixth Synod, and compare them with the tune and
the circumstances in which they were written, we
shall be forced to conclude that they form a sum-
mary treatise on the supreme infallible authority of
the Apostolic See, considered in its principles and in
its practical application. The Oriental Church had
fallen into schism because it had allowed itself to
be led astray by the subtleties of the Monothelite
teachers, and had refused to listen to the infallible
voice of the Roman Pontiffs. Now it looked for
reconciliation and unity from a Universal Council.
Pope Agatho, in his two letters, points out the way
to reconciliation and unity. He sets before them the
formula of Catholic faith, which is the formula of the
Apostolic Magisterium of the Roman See ; and he
informs them they must believe and confess it, and,
on the other hand, condemn and reject every dogma
contrary to it. Should they refuse to submit to this
rule of faith, they would be in error, in schism, and
reprobation. But he could not impose a formula of
faith to be believed and confessed unless his Mauis-
teriuni was universally acknowledged as infallible.

90 The Sirth Synod and the

Therefore he repeatedly insists on that capital point
of doctrine. He declares that the Roman See has
never erred, and that it never shall err. He con-
firms and explains his assertion by referring to the
promises of Christ, to the example of all the Fathers
and Doctors of the Church, and of the (Ecumenical
Synods themselves, which had always received from
Rome the paradigm of the doctrine they were to
define. At the same time, as supreme and infallible
Doctor in the Church, he not only proposes the
Catholic formula of faith with regard to the two
wills and operations in Christ, but he also exposes
the errors of Monothelism, and, by drawing out the
traditional doctrine of all the Fathers, he shows the
fallacies of the heretics, and affords new weapons for
their demolition. Thus we see that the doctrine of
the Infallibility of the Roman See is far from being
artfully inserted in the Letters of Pope Agatho, as
Dr. Dollinger has imagined. 18 This doctrine is woven
into their very substance ; it is the groundwork of
their whole argument. If we make abstraction for
a moment from that teaching, the whole drift of the
two letters is pointless and meaningless. How could
Agatho proclaim an (Ecumenical Council to be in
error and reprobation, should it decline to receive at
his hands the doctrine of faith, had he not been in-
fallible, had not the doctrine of Papal infallibility
been a traditional dogma in the universal Church ?

And now let us see how the assembled Fathers
received his two letters. Did they lift up their
18 Op. cit. p. 137.

Com1ennnili,i o /><)>(- Ifmiar'ni*. 01

voice in protest against the fundamental doctrine of
infallibility which Agatlm attributed to his See, and
which he rested on the promises of Christ Him-
self? AVas objection raised to the magisterial tone
of the letters addressed to an (Kcunu-nical Council?
That large and influential assembly of Bishops not
only found nothing to censure in the letters of the
Pope, but it received them as a whole and in all
their parts as if they had been written by St. Peter,
or rather by God Himself. The Fathers testified to
their admitting the infallible and divine authority
of the letters in the eighth session, as well as in the
Synodical Letter addressed to Agatho ; and in the
Prosphonetic Letter sent to the Emperor 19 they re-
garded them as a rule of faith. No sooner did a
suspicion arise that four Bishops and two monks
refused to adhere to them, than the Council ordered
them to give an explanation of their faith in writing
and on oath. They submitted, and solemnly affirmed
that they accepted without reserve all the heads of
doctrine contained in the letters. 20 Again, Macarius 7

19 Cone. Const, iii. act. viii (Labbe, t. vii. p. 7GO.) u: sx roZ
TIvtv/Aarog roD 'Ay/co VTayGpsuQiiffag dia ffro'/ttarog TOU a^/ou y,ai xopv-
<pa.iov ruv ' AfoffroXuv FleVgou, xai dia rov $O.'/.T'J\O-J ro\j

Kju'st. Synod, ml A.^atln'iu-ni Papain, in act. xviii. ( Labhe, 1. c. p.

ra 7/vou<rxo/a,=v. Scrim Prosphoneticna ail Consjantinum jam

in act. xviii. (Lal.be, 1. c. p. 1089.) xa/ di" Ayd6wvo$ 6 LUVfos sf-
Qiyytro.

10 Cone. Const, iii. act. x. (Labbc, I.e. p. 873 sqq.) In the for-

mula presented to the Synod they declared that they adhered simply
and without reserve to all the heads of Tope Agatho's letter.

92 The Sixth Synod and the

Patriarch of Antioch, was, by sentence of the Coun-
cil, deposed from his dignity and expelled from the
Synod, because he refused to adhere to the letters
of Agatho. 21

The simple truth is, that some of the strongest
proofs of Papal Infallibility are found in the acts of
this Sixth General Council ; so that we may be sure
that the objection founded by our adversaries upon
the condemnation of Pope Honor ius has no solid
basis. In order that this objection should have real
weight, it must be shown that the Council condemned
Honorius as having taught heresy ex cathedra; but
not only is it impossible to give any proof of this,
but the contrary may be proved to demonstration.
To maintain that the Council condemned Honorius
on account of heretical teaching ex cathedra, is in
reality to assert that Pope Agatho and the Synod
itself were guilty of the most glaring self-contradic-
tion. Mr. Renouf admits that "the papal legates,
who were strictly tied by their instructions, must
have had Pope Agatho's consent to the condemna-
tion of Honorius." But since there is no trace in
his letters of his having given such consent, Mr.
Renouf concludes that they must have had secret
instructions. 22 So, according to Mr. Renouf, Pope
Agatho must have on the one hand solemnly taught
in his letters to the Emperors and to the Synod, that
his predecessors had never erred, nor could be led
into error, founded as they were on the solid rock of

21 Cone. Const, iii. act. viii. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 768.)
1 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 17.

Condemnation <f .1\><> Honorius. 93

the divine promises, while on the other hand he gave
secret instructions to his legates to condemn Hono-
rius precisely for having taught heresy ex cathedral !
AVould not such conduct have contained at one and
the same time the folly of self-contradiction and the
shame of dishonesty ? With regard to the Council,
it had repeatedly acknowledged all the heads of
doctrine mentioned in Pope Agatho's letter. By
adhering to it the Synod had professed that none of
the predecessors of Agatho had ever erred, being
founded on the rock of Peter, and deriving security
from the promises of Christ ; implicitly, therefore, it
had made a solemn profession that Honorius, being a
Pope, had not taught any heresy ex cathedra. How
could it, then, at that very time, condemn him as
having taught heresy to the universal Church? Es-
pecially as even after the condemnation of Honorius
the Fathers show that they had not forgotten the doc-
trine to which they gave their adherence by adopting
Pope Agatho's letter. In the Synodical Address in
which they inform the Pope of all the proceedings
of the Council, and in particular of the condemnation
of the heretics and of Honorius himself, they solemnly
acknowledge the authority of the Papal letters, as if
they were written by the Apostle Peter himself; and
on this account they leave it to the Pope to decide
what is to be done in defence of the faith, because,
they say, he rests on the firm rock of faith. 23 In the
Prosphonetic Letter to the Emperor Constantine they

3 Litters sextse Syn<uli ;ul Agathonem Papam, act. xviii.
(Labbe, 1. c. p. 1109.)

94 The Sixth Synod and the

inculcate the same doctrine, and declare that Peter
himself spoke through Agatho. 24 In these passages
we read the authentic commentary of the Synod it-
self upon its own act in condemning Honorius. The
Council consistently maintains throughout the doc-
trine of Papal Infallibility ; wherefore, in condemning
Honorius, it could not have meant that he had taught
heresy ex cathedrd. No council ever committed itself
to so flagrant a contradiction and so disgraceful a
deceit. Again, the Synod professed to receive Aga-
tho' s letters as divinely written, so that they received
them as containing doctrines based on Divine reve-
lation; it is, therefore, incredible that the Council
solemnly decreed anything the truth of which would
prove that the divine promises were falsified. Pope
Agatho, moreover, said to the Council in his letters :
" The Roman See has never erred, and never will
err, because of Christ's promise." The assembled
Fathers answered : " This, as well as the other doc-
trinal teachings of his letters, is the teaching of St.
Peter." And they spoke in this tone, not only before
the condemnation of Honorius, but also after it, in
the final Sy nodical Letter sent by them in the last
session to Pope Agatho, and in the Prosphonetic
Address to the Emperor. On all these grounds it is
absurd to think that the Council condemned Hono-
rius for having taught heresy in the Church. Our
adversaries not only charge the Council with self-
contradiction, but also with having fallen into a most

24 See the Prosphonetic Letter addressed to the Emperor, in act.
xviii. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1089.)

Condemnation of Pope Honorius. 95

grievous doctrinal error. A Pope and an (Ecumenical
Council joined in the profession that a certain doc-
trine was true and divine; and yet it is maintained
that they afterwards rejected that doctrine! This
they could not do without abandoning their own
character for infallibility. Here we see the reason
why the Sixth Synod applied the word " dogmatic"
to the letters of Agatho ; 25 while they never use
that epithet of the letters of Honorius. Mr. Renouf
passes over all these points ; and after having quoted
from Bellarmine a remark upon the subject, he leaves
it to u the partisans of the culpable remissness of
Honorius to settle this question with Bellarmine." 26
This is a very unfair and shuffling manner of shaking
off the weight of a strong objection.

What, then, was really the offence for which Pope
Honorius was condemned by the Sixth Synod? This
is a question of great interest, not because the doc-
trine of Papal Infallibility depends upon it, but be-
cause the answer strikes at the very root of the objec-
tions raised by our adversaries against the purity
of faith of that Pope. We have several passages in
the Acts of the Sixth Council in which Pope Hono-
rius is either decried or spoken of. In three of them
Honorius is condemned apart from the Monothelite
heretics, and distinct causes are mentioned for the con-
demnation of him and for that of the others ; while in
three other places he is condemned in common with

25 See the Prosphonetic Letter a<Mivssc<l t<> tin- Emperor, in act.
xviii. (LaM)i-, 1. c. p. 1088.)
2 ^ Renouf, 1. c.pp. 17.

96 The Sixth Synod and the

the rest. The three former passages are to be found
in the Decree of Condemnation, in the Prosphonetic
Letter, and in the Imperial Edict. 27 The others may
be seen at the end of the thirteenth session, in the
Definition, and in the Synodical Letter to Pope Aga-
tho; to these the first part also of the Decree may
be added. 28 Now it is clear that the latter class of
passages ought to be explained by the former, be-
cause, among other reasons, it contains the actual
Decree of Condemnation, on which is founded what-
ever else is said concerning Honorius.

Let us first examine this important document.
In a note we give the decree in the Latin version, 29

27 Labbe, 1. c. pp. 977, 1089, 1121.

28 Ib. pp. 1005, 1057, 1109, 977.

29 " Retractantes dogmaticas epistolas, quae tanquam a Sergio
quondam Patr. hujus a Deo conservandae regiae urbis scriptae suiit,
tarn ad Cyrum, qui time fuerat episcopus Phasidis, quam ad Hono-
rium quondam papam antiquae Romae : sinriliter autem et epistolam
ab illo, id est Honorio, rescriptam ad eundem Sergium; hasque
invenientes omnino alienas existere ab Apostolicis dogmatibus, et
a definitionibus sanctorum conciliorum et cunctonmi probabilium
Patrum, sequi vero falsas doctrinas haereticorum, eas omnino abji-
cimus et tanquam animse noxias cxecramur. Quorum autem, id est
eorundem impia execramur dogmata, horum et nomina a sancta
Dei Ecclesia projici judicavimus, id est Sergii .... qui aggressus
est de hujusmodi impio dogmate conscribere, Cyri Alexandria?,
Pyrrlii, Petri et Pauli, qui et ipsi praesulatu functi sunt in sede
hujus a Deo conservandae civitatis, et similia eis senserunt, ad haec
et Theodori quondam episcopi Pharan, quarum omnium suprascrip-
tarum personarum mentionem fecit Agatho sanctissimus ac ter bea-
tissimus Papa antique Romas in suggestione, quam fecit ad piis-
simum et a Deo confirmaturn Dominum nostrum et magnum im-
peratorem, eosque abjicit, utpote contraria rectae fidei nostrae sen-
tientes, quos anathemati submitti definimus. Cum his vero simul
projici a sancta Dei catholica ecclesia simulque anathematizari prse-

Condemnation of Pope Honorius. 97

and from it it is clear that the Council purposely
draws a line of distinction between the cause of Ser-
gius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, Theodore, with
others who agreed with them, and that of Hono-
rius. Of the former it is said ; u these are the names
of those whose impious doctrines we execrate :" the
names i.e. of those whom Pope Agatho mentioned in
his letters, and condemned as professing doctrines
contrary to the faith ; and, in conformity with Aga-
tho's sentence, they pronounce anathema on them.
It is evident, then, that Sergius and the rest were
condemned as heretics. But Honorius is spoken of
apart from them, and the Synod declares that he is
anathematised because in all things he followed Ser-
gius, and gave strength to the impious doctrines:
u quia in omnibus ejus (Sergii) mentem sequutus est,
et impia dogmata confirmavit." 30 No one believed
that the Pope had taught the impious doctrines which
were execrated, or even that he had held them inter-
nally. And accordingly no expression to this effect
was used concerning him either in the Prosphonetic
Letter to Constantine, or in the edict of the Empe-
ror. In the first of these two documents the Fathers
called the Monothelite Eastern Patriarchs inventors
of heretical novelties ; but as to Honorius they used

vidimus et Honorium, <jui fin-rut papa antique Romae, eo quod
iiivi-nimus per scripta qu;tj al> eo tart a Mint ad Ser^ium, quod in
onmilms cjus ui<>ntnu sn|imtu> r-4 et impia dogmata confirmavit."
In act. xiii. Cone. vi. (Lul>l>e, 1. <.)

; xarce cravra rfl sxtho-j yvuiLy e;~a'/,o\GUt)f t ffav-a, xai TO,
doy/tara. 1. C.

98 The Sixth Synod and the

the very expression of the decree, since they say of
him "qui eos in his sequutus est." 31 In the others
Honorius is termed "hujus hrereseos confirmator,
qui etiam sui extitit oppugnator." 32 Now what
does the Council mean by ry yvu^y s&xoKovOJjffavrct ?
We have already answered this question in the pre-
ceding section. Sergius, indeed, applied to Pope
Honorius in order to have a sanction to the eco-
nomy of silence with regard to the expression one
or two operations in Christ; and although he art-
fully insinuated the maxims of Monothelism, still he
showed no open anxiety for anything but to obtain
the papal confirmation for his scheme of economical
silence. And what adherence did Honorius give in
his answer to Sergius? Certainly he gave no adher-
ence to the heresy ; for the doctrine expressed in his
letters is wholly Catholic, and entirely contrary to
that expressed by Sergius. But he consented without
any limitation to the economy of silence proposed
by the Patriarch. In this then, and in nothing else,
did he follow Sergius' mind (r?J yv^^y l^axoKovQh-
and r yvoj can here mean nothin but

4 scheme.'

Honorius, in truth, was not guilty of any error
in his apprehension of doctrine, as were the other
prelates condemned as heretics by the Synod : his
error was practical, and consisted only in the eco-
nomy of silence by which he favoured the develop-
ment of the heresy, and allowed it to strike deep

;1 Sermo Prosplioneticus, 1. c. ug sxuvotg sv rovroig a
32 Edictum, 1. c.

Condemnation <> J'o'c Ilonorius. 99

.md extrusive root. It is true that, as appears from
Iiis letters, he did not see in that practical economy
anything counter to the faith, especially as no Council
had yet definitively fixed the language suitable to
express the dogma of the wills and operations in
Christ. But he did not seek advice from any Roman
Synod ; he did not inquire into the true course of recent
events in the Eastern provinces ; he did not obtain
reliable information on the character of those prelates
who were so anxious to impose silence on the most
zealous champions of Catholic truth. His acquaint-
ance both with persons and things was evidently
most imperfect; and this aggravates his fault; for he
kept silence when he should have raised his Apos-
tolical voice against the promoters of heresy, and
brought them back to the Catholic confession, or if
this failed, anathematised them, and checked their
attempts to corrupt the faith. But why did he ab-
stain from censuring and condemning the errors in-
sinuated in the letters of Sergius, and defended by
Cyrus and the others? Satisfied with having stated
in his answers the pure doctrine of the Church, he
passed over without any notice the destructive errors
which were contained in those letters, and even in-
sisted on the economy of silence, which proved a
weapon of great power in the hands of the Mono-
thelite leaders against the Catholic teaching. "We
repeat, the enemies of the faith never once sought
to obtain from Honorius any consent to their errors;
they wanted nothing more than the economical si-
lence, that they might labour undisturbed at the ruin

100 The Sixth Synod and the

of the Catholic doctrine. Honorius, in violation of
every principle of ecclesiastical prudence, granted
what they asked. Here was his fault. Whatever
his intention may have been, he fully adhered to
the proposal of Sergius, by which the heresy was
confirmed and took deeper root in the East. There-
fore is he said in the decree to have confirmed the
impious dogma of the Patriarch, and in the edict of
Constantine he is called " confirmer of the Mono-
thelite heresy." But at the same time the Synod
neither attributed to him the invention of the new
heresy, nor any adhesion to it ; and in the edict it is
pointedly said that he " etiam sui extitit oppugna-
tor;" because, whilst by his fatal economy of silence
he contributed to strengthen and spread the new
heresy, he, at the same time, advocated the true
Catholic doctrine concerning the two operations in
Christ.

Mr. Renouf attaches great importance to the word
xvguffavru of the decree. u The Sixth (Ecumenical
Council," he says, " expressly condemns Honorius as
xvguffuvrot the impious dogmas of Sergius, having
officially confirmed and ratified them, and stamped
them with authority." And he adds that "lexico-
graphers tell us, avowal non tarn significare com-
probare, quam cum auctoritate decernere, legitime
rem transigere, ut demum ratum sit quod actum
fuerit." 33 Now Mr. Renouf should be reminded
first that Stephanus, to whom he refers, adds,
after the quoted words, " subjungitur tamen 1.
33 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 23.

Condemnation of Pope Honorius. 101

Herod, in quo simpliciter rcdclitur verbo confir-
t/tare." 3 * And again, even if the word xvgvffavra
should be taken to signify a confirmation with au-
thority, its application must be to a consequence
of Honorius having followed the mind of Sergius.
Honorius, indeed, instead of using his apostolical
authority in checking and condemning the new
heresy, used it wrongly in enforcing the economy
of silence as proposed by Sergius. Thus in fact
and historically, so to speak, his authority was
used in confirmation and propagation of the very
heresy which he intended to suppress. Mr. Ke-
nouf is wrong in attributing to the word xvgaxravru
any such meaning as affects Honorius' understand-
ing and will. On the contrary, whilst we admit, by
way of concession, the signification of an authorita-
tive confirmation, we free the Pope from the charge
of a fault which would have been a glaring contra-
diction with the tenets he expresses in his letters.

To proceed now to the language used by the
Synod in the other passages where Honorius is con-
demned, together with the others ; we unhesitatingly
say that it no way opposes the view we take. For
since Honorius, by his imprudent economy of silence
and his grievous neglect in the discharge of his duties,
contributed to the spread of the new heresy, he par-
took of the same fault in solidum with the others,
although he had not himself been guilty of any heresy
whatever ; and such language is quite in accordance

34 Stephani Thesaurus, t. iv. p. r>-17G, ad voccni xvpusai. Loii-
dini, 1822,

102 The Sixth Synod and the

with the technical and canonical language used by
the Church. 35 We need not wonder then, if in the
definition of faith the Pope is joined with the other
Monothelites, and called an instrument of the devil,
who availed himself of it to spread the new errors ; 36
if, in the synodical letter to Agatho the Fathers say
that they have slain with their anathemas Honorius,
with the Eastern prelates, as sinners in a matter
of faith ; 37 if in the thirteenth session his letters, in
common with the writings of the heretics, are con-
demned to be burned as soul-destroying, and con-
tributing to the same crime. 38 Pope Honorius did in
truth, by his false economy and his neglect, become
an instrument of the devil against the faith ; there-
fore he was guilty of betrayal of the faith, and, in a
way different to the rest, he contributed to the same
iniquity, that is to say, to the propagation of the
heresy and the destruction of souls. In the same
manner, in the first part of the decree, Honorius'
letters, as well as the writings of the others, are
called "alien from the apostolic teachings, following
the false teachings of the heretics, and soul-destroy-
ing." But although these expressions, taken in a
general way, are all suitable in solidum, they cannot
be referred to Honorius' letters in the same sense
in which they concern those of Sergius, Theodore,
Pyrrhus, and other heretical authors. In the strict

85 See Epist. xxi. Coelestini Papa? ad Episcopos Galliamm, n. 2.
(Constant. Epist. Eom. Pontif. p. 1186.)

36 Act. xviii. Cone. vi. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1057.)

37 Ib. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1109.) 3S Labbe, 1. c. p. 1005.

Condemnation of l\>pc Ilunon 103

sense, they relate only to the latter ; as is borne
out by the second part of the decree, which we have
just examined. The letters of Honorius are truly
alien from the apostolic teachings, not because they
contain any error contrary to the traditional doc-
trines handed down by the Apostles, but because
they do not reveal that ecclesiastical prudence and
diligence, that courage in correcting erroneous doc-
trines and reducing the minds of heretics to obedi-
ence, which have always been traditional in the
Church, and ever practised by the Roman Pontiffs.
The letters followed the false teachings of the here-
tics, that is to say, they helped and supported the
false teachings of the heretics (Isro^sw^). 39 Sergius
and the others, by their writings, helped and supported
heresy, because they adopted and directly promoted
the spread of false doctrine ; Honorius did so, only
because, by his fatal economy of silence, he helped
that teaching to be spread and gain strength.

We wonder that Mr. Eenouf ascribes so great
importance to the testimony given by the Patriarchs
Pyrrhus and Macarius against the purity of Hono-
rius' faith. Undoubtedly two Monothelite prelates
could not well speak differently ; they could not
appeal for support to Honorius' successors, who had
openly and solemnly condemned their errors. But
Honorius, by his false economy of silence, had
already compromised his character, and opened the

39 The deponent middle v-rl> 'i-ropoii in its fundamental significa-
tion means not only to follow, but hence also to stand by, to help,
to support.

104 The Sixth Synod and the

door to calumny. However, although it is true that
Pyrrhus and Macarius charged Honorius with heresy,
yet the Council never intended to condemn him as
a heretic. Neither can our adversaries sustain any
objection founded upon the words of the Synod
addressed to Pope Agatho, when they declare that
they have slain with anathema those who were guilty
in a matter of faith (^sgi rrjv ictariv faagrqxorcig^ ac-
cording to the sentence previously issued by Agatho
against them in his second letter.

In addition to the remarks which we have already
made on this passage, it may be here observed that
the above words do not properly concern Pope Hono-
rius. The allusion to the decree of the thirteenth ses-
sion, which concerns only the Monothelite prelates, and
the words in question, follow close after the sentence
of condemnation of these prelates, in which, as we
saw above, Honorius is not comprehended. The Coun-
cil, after having mentioned the names of Sergius,
Cyrus, Theodore of Pharan, Pyrrhus, Peter, and Paul,
whose impious dogmas it execrates, continues : "qua-
rum omnium suprascriptamm personarum mentionem
fecit Agatho sanctissimus et ter beatissimus Papa
antique Eomae in suggestione quam fecit ad piissi-
mum et a Deo confirmatum dominum nostrum et
magnum imperatorem." 40 It is certain that Pope
Agatho mentioned no other names except those of
the heretics : neither in his letter to the Emperor,
nor in the letter addressed to the Synod, did he al-
lude to any one else much less to Honorius, who,
40 Act. xiii. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 978.)

Condemnation of r<>]><> Ilini<n-iu. 1

as we said above, was certainly spoken of in his
letter as one of his predecessors, who had endea-
voured to defend the Catholic doctrine by imposing
silence on the Monothelite leaders. On this account,
in the synodical address to Pope Agatho, the Fathers
made distinct mention of those who had been pointed
out in that Pope's letters, and of Macarius and Poly-
chronius, who, although not mentioned by the Pope,
had been slain as heretics with their anathemas.
Pope Honorius did not properly belong either to
the first class or to the second. But the Synod,
in its summary report to the Pope, divided the ana-
thematised persons into those who had departed this
life and those who were still living, 41 and it classed
Honorius with the former, although he had not par-
taken in the same manner of their iniquity. At all
events, the decree of condemnation inserted in the
thirteenth session would have been sufficient to point
out the nature of his crime. It is true, however,
that the Sixth Synod did not examine the cause
of Honorius, nor pronounce sentence against him,
without the previous authorisation of the Roman
See. Otherwise its proceedings would have been
unlawful, according to the maxim expressed by Pope
Adrian II. in his third Allocution to the eighth
(Ecumenical Council. 42

But we must consider whether the Roman See

41 "Post eos, anatlK-matilms luuvtir<>nim juste suljirhmis et
eos qui vivunt, susa-pla illoruni impietaU-," &c. (Labbe, 1. c.
p. 1110.)

42 ('one. Constantino]!, iv. ad. vii. (Lul>1n. t. x. p. 597.)

106 T/ie Sixth Synod and the

authorised the Fathers of the Sixth Synod to con-
demn Honorius as a heretic. Mr. Renouf sets great
value on the acclamations of the sixteenth session, 43
in which anathema was said to Honorius the heretic,
as it was to the others who had been previously con-
demned by the Council in the thirteenth session.
On this we remark, first, that the acclamation quoted
not only is no definitive sentence, but does not even
show what was the feeling of the whole Council.
In the sixteenth session, after the condemnation of
Constantine a priest of Apamea in Syria, George
the Patriarch of Constantinople declared to the as-
sembled Fathers that he and some others among
the Bishops dependent on him were anxious that the
Synod, through economy (&/' olx,ovopia,v\ should, if
possible, abstain from anathematising any person by
name (ovopaffrty in their acclamations, as, for in-
stance, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter. 44 If he
asked for this kind of condescension in his own
name, as well as in that of other Bishops, in favour
of the authors of the new heresy, because of their
having been Patriarchs of Constantinople, much more
must they have intended that no such expression
should be used in the case of Honorius, who was
not the originator of the error. But the majority of
the Synod refused to follow the suggestion of eco-
nomy, and resolved to anathematise by name all
those who were already condemned (roug

43 'Ovupiw alpirixZ) avaOefLct (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1044). Mr. Ecnonf
has even printed these words on the cover of his pamphlet !

44 Cone. vi. act. xvi. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1044.)

Condemnation of Pope Honor in*. 107

rovg). It follows that all persons mentioned in the
acclamations were to be designated in accordance
with the previous decree of their condemnation.
Xow we have seen that in the decree Honorius was
not condemned on account of any heretical tenet.
Why, then, it will be asked, is he termed " heretic"
in the acclamations ? Two explanations may be
given. Either the Synod, by applying this term
to Honorius without qualification, used it in its se-
condary meaning, according to the opinion of many
learned theologians, confirmed by several exam-
ples in antiquity, 45 or it is to be attributed to a
faction, which, like that of Gerson in the Synod of
Constance, contrived to vent all its bitterness against
Honorius in the final synodical acclamations. We
must admit the existence of such a Greek faction in
the Sixth Synod, which it was impossible to keep in
thorough control on account of the absence of the
Western Prelates. " Honorius," said Adrian II.,
"was anathematised by the Orientals." 46 This re-
mark of Adrian II. deserves attention. We have
already admitted the fault of Pope Honorius, and
the justice of the sentence pronounced against him.
But still we must confess that we feel far greater
admiration for the Fathers of the Lateran Council,
belonging for the most part to the West, who be-
haved as dutiful children in concealing their father's

45 See, for instance, Suarez Do Fide, (lisp. xxiv. sect. 1. n. G.
" Omissive antcm censetur ihvoro (luvivsi), <pii oinitiit ia<.-m> <[u<ul
tciu-tur, ut liiiTeticus puniiitur vel ah errore ce

46 Allocutio lortia Hadrian! ad Synodum viii. (Lahhc, i
P. :97.)

108 The Sixth Synod and the

shame, than for the Greek Bishops of the Sixth
Synod, who gave the first example in the Church of
so solemn a condemnation of a Pope. At all events,
we cannot help strongly denouncing the exaggera-
tion and bitterness of expression used in his con-
demnation : these are certainly due to a faction, a
strong faction, which exercised its influence in that
Council, and carried the day. It is in such facts that
we see the reason why the acts of all synods are under
the control of the Supreme Pastor and Ruler of the
Church. Even if all the Prelates of the East had
joined in condemning Honorius as a heretic (which
we deny), their decree would have been without
authority in the Church, unless it were sealed with
the mark of the Sovereign Pontiff. On this point
there is no difference of opinion between Gallicans
and the rest of Catholics, whom Mr. Renouf is pleased
to call Ultramontane. The assembly of the Bishops
cannot represent the Church unless it is in close
union with the Pope ; and therefore its decrees can-
not have authority unless stamped with the authority
of the Pope himself. On this account it is idle to
pick out of the acts of the Sixth Synod expressions
and phrases aggravating the sentence of condemna-
tion against Pope Honorius. The main question is
well put by Dr. Ward, in his article in the Dublin
Review on Mr. Renouf 's pamphlet : u What declara-
tions of the Council against Honorius received Pon-
tifical sanction, and in what sense they received it." 47
It is true that Pope Leo II., who succeeded
47 Dublin Review, July 1868, p. 217.

/> ni/ni//'<i

Agatho in the Pontifical See, confirmed the Third
Council of Constantinople, and ranked it with the
(Kriunenical Svmxls ; but what decrees of the Sixth
S vnod received his supreme sanction, and in what
seise did they receive it? The Fathers of the
Sixth Synod, at the end of the eighteenth session,
asked the Emperor to send to all the patriarchal
Sees an authentic copy of the definition of faith,
signed by the Council (ieorvTrovg tvj~oyou$ovg ogovg}.^
Pope Leo II. confirmed nothing but the definition
of faith, although he received all the acts of the
Synod, together with the imperial edict. We have
several letters of this Pope in which he either au-
thoritatively confirms the Sixth Council, or commu-
nicates to the Bishops his adhesion to it. In all
and each of them he pointedly limits his confirma-
tion and approval to the dogmatic definition. In
his official letter to the Emperor he declares only
that he confirms the definition of the right faith
(r7,g bcQ?jg vriffTza? rov o^ov). 49 In his letter to the
liishops of Spain he tells them that he forwards to
them the definition of faith sanctioned in the Sixth
Synod, the prosphonetic address to the Emperor, and
his edict ; he promises that he will send the whole of
the conciliar acts ; but he requires their signatures
to no more than the definition of faith. 50 He says

48 Labbe, t. vii. p. 1108.

49 Exemplar IMationis missae a L<-i>ne Papa al Constantinuin
Imp. (Labbr, t. vii. p. 1 l.">3.)

50 Epist. ii. Lrniii.s II. ad Kpisr.-pns lli^paiiin- (Labbe, t. vii. p.
1456-57). "Ab omnibus reverendia Kpisc..pis una vobiscum sub-
srriptinis in ea Inn deiiniti"nr vriii-raiuli cm-ilii Bubnectantur."

110 The Sixth Synod and the

the same in his letter to Simplicius, 51 and in that ad-
dressed to King Ervigius. 62 So that no doubt what-
ever can remain with regard to his intention being
really what he expresses. Again, in what manner
did he sanction the definition of faith, and in what
sense did he anathematise Honorius ? " Since the
holy, universal, and great Sixth Synod," he says,
. . . . " has followed in everything the apostolic
doctrine of the most eminent Fathers, and since it
preached the same definition of the right faith, which
the Apostolic See of the holy Apostle Peter received
with veneration, therefore we, and through our exer-
cise of our office this venerable Apostolic See, gives
full consent to the things contained in the definition
of faith, and confirms them with the authority of
the blessed Peter, that, being placed on the solid
rock of Christ Himself, it may be supplied by the
Lord with strength." 53

The main reason, therefore, why Pope Leo sanc-
tions the definition of the right faith is, because he
found it conformable to the doctrine of the Pontifical
See, by which the Synod itself, as it had already
confessed, had been instructed. 54 Hence he exhibited

51 Epist. iv. Leonis II. ad Simplicium Comitem (Labbe, 1. c.
p. 1460). "Hortati autem sumus reverendissimos ecclesiarum
omnium prrcsules, ut subscriptiones suas eidem apostolicse synodal!
definition! subnectant."

52 Epist. v. Leonis II. ad Ervigium regem Hispanic (Labbe,
1. c. p. 1462).

53 Relatio cit. Leonis II. ad Constantinmn Imp. (Labbe, 1. c.
p. 1153.)

54 UI ayiw '-rvsv/j,ari Xa/AWpuvofAtvoi) /ecu rate, u//,gTga/ didaff-

Con<lciniit'ion of Pope Honor in*. Ill

the Pontifical See as the authentic organ of the apos-
tolical teaching. It was not enough that the doc-
trine contained in the definition had gone along with
the doctrine of the Fathers ; it was necessary that
it should concur with the teaching of the Apostolic
See ; for the doctrine of the Fathers is a stream from
that head-fountain. But if the truth of a dogmatic
doctrine depends upon its agreeing with the teaching
of the Pontifical See, we have here plain evidence
of the infallibility of that See in its doctrinal Magis-
terium. Pope Leo II. therefore, no less than Agatho
his predecessor, upheld the doctrine of Pontifical
Infallibility in the act by which he sanctioned the
dogmatical definition of the Sixth Council. Conse-
quently he implicitly declared that whatever was
the character of the fault of Honorius, it was cer-
tainly not that of having taught any error ex ca-
thed r<"/.

Once more : what sanction did Leo II. give to
the condemnation of Honorius in common with the
Bishops of the Monothelite faction, which is to be
found in the definition of faith ? In his letter of
confirmation of the Sixth Council addressed to .the
Kmperor Constantine, after having anathematised
the earlier heretics, he continues : " Likewise we
anathematise the inventors of the new error : Theo-
dore Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Ser-
gius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, traitors rather than
rulers of the Church of Constantinople. Moreover,

c. Epist. Synodal, ml Agatlionem Papam, in
act. xviii. (Lalil.i-, t. vii. }>. 11 1 -

112 The Sixth Synod and the

Honorius also, who did not endeavour to preserve
pure the Apostolic Church by the doctrine of the
apostolic tradition, but permitted (^a^^ffe) the Im-
maculate to be denied by profane betrayal." 55

Before making our remarks on this passage, we
must revert for a moment to Mr. Eenouf. This gen-
tleman makes a small addition to Pope Leo's words,
and bases on this additional word his answer to the
argument derived from the passage. "A passage
of Pope Leo II.," he writes, " is also appealed to, in
which he says that Honorius 'permitted the immacu-
late Church to be polluted by his profane betrayal/
I cannot see how this saves Honorius." 56 It is un-
deniable that the passage construed as Mr. Eenouf
construes it cannot save Honorius ; his cause is lost
if he permitted the Church to be polluted by his
profane betrayal. But Mr. Eenouf did not find in
the text, whether Greek or Latin, that pronoun his
which he gratuitously adds in his translation of the
original. It does not exist either in the Greek or
in the old Latin translation, or even in Dr. Dol-
linger's Papstbuch iiber Honorius^ 1 If the pronoun
be rejected, which has thus been uncritically and
unjustifiably inserted, the Greek text easily and
without the slightest strain yields a good sense. 58

55 Eelatio cit. Leonis II. ad Const. Imp. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1156.)

56 The Condemnation, &c. p. 13 n. 57 Papst Fabelii, p. 138.
58 Peter De Marca, in his time, saw no difficulty in the Greek

text, and he translated it as follows : " qui Apostolicam Ecclesiam
11011 est conatus lustrare doctrina apostolicie traditionis, sed pro-
ftina proditione puram inaculari permisit." In Vita Petri De
Marca scrip ta a Balutio, p. 29.

Condemnation of Pope Ilonorius. 113

For the present we shall say nothing about the simi-
larity which .Mr. Eenouf finds between the passage
in question and the second profession of faith made
by the Roman Pontiffs, as it exists in the Liber
Diurnu*. Returning, then, to the words of Pope
Leo, it clearly follows from them that Honorius was
not condemned for heresy, but because, through his
negligence, he permitted the heretics to spread in
the East the error of one will and operation in Christ.
Pope Leo drew a line of demarcation between the
Monothelite Prelates and Pope Honorius : he de-
scribed the former as inventors of the new error
(rovg Itpwctrag rqg vzag vXdv7]$) ; but he placed the

fault of the latter in a grievous neglect in the
discharge of his pontifical duties, for which the im-
maculate Church was allowed to be polluted by
profane betrayal (ry fizfifau Toi<xr/(f). These last
words evidently refer to the Monothelite Prelates,
inventors of the new error, and they by no means
concern Honorius. It is impossible to refer them to
him ; for he could not be said to have permitted the
immaculate Church to be polluted, when he had so
acted as to pollute it in a direct manner by his pro-
fane betrayal.

In the other two letters addressed by the same
Pontiff to the Bishops of Spain and to King Er-
viinus, he does not make use of expressions cal-
culated to mitigate the force of the condemnation
of Ilonorius, but he explains what he had already
expressed in the letter to the Kmprror: so that the
three letters put together exhibit in full the view

i

114 Tlie Sixth Synod and the

taken by Pope Leo of the case. In the former he
again draws a marked distinction between the Mono-
thelite Prelates and Honorius : the former are called
" perduelliones adversum apostolicaB traditionis puri-
tatem;" and this is the crime to which their con-
demnation is ascribed, namely, the crime of heresy.
Pope Leo does not, as Mr. Renouf ventures to say,
include Honorius among the " perduelliones adver-
sum apostolicee traditionis puritatem." 59 The Pontiff
clearly and explicitly alleges the cause of his con-
demnation, making it quite distinct from that of the
heretics ; and he rests it on the omission to extin-
guish at its outset the flame of the heretical error,
us required by the dignity of the apostolic autho-
rity, and on the negligence which fostered it. 60
These expressions, no less than those of the letter
to the Emperor, do not give any hint whatever
of Honorius having privately adhered to the Mono-
thelite heresy, or of his having preached it, and
having been condemned for it. Again, in the other
letter to King Ervigius, Leo II. did not speak of
Honorius to any different effect. Nevertheless Mr.
Renouf attaches far greater importance to Leo's
words in this letter, as supporting his opinion, than
is done by any other writer on the same side ; and
he is surprised that Dr. Dollinger seems not to have

59 The Condemnation, &c. p. 5.

60 " Qui ilanimam hneretici dogmatis, non ut decuit apostoli-
cam auctoritatem, incipientem extinxit, sed negligendo confovit."
Epistola ii. Leonis IT. ad Episcopos Hispaniae (Labbe, t. yii. p.
1456).

Co)nJcinn<itii) of Pope Honorius. 115

recognised their force. 61 But the Munich professor
is so far from laying any stress whatever on the
passage in question, that he is inclined to think its
expressions are calculated to soften down the im-
pression produced by the condemnation of Honorius.
What, then, is the reason why Mr. Rcnouf makes
so much of Leo's words ? Speaking of Pope Leo
he says, u he includes Honorius among the omnes Id
who, unam voluntatem unamque operationem pra>
dicantes, doctrinam ha3reticam impudenter defendere
conabantur." 6 ' 2 This assertion is altogether errone-
ous, and so evidently erroneous that no one of all
the adversaries of Honorius ever dreamt of founding
an objection on this passage; but, on the contrary, all
of them regard Leo's letter to King Ervigius as an
objection to their theory. Pope Leo indeed, in this
as well as in the other places quoted above, draws
a broad line between the Monothelite Bishops and
Pope Honorius. He terms the former "authors of
heretical assertion," 63 as in the letter to the Spanish
Bishops. Of Honorius he says, that he was anathe-
matised una cum eis ; but he evidently denies that he

61 See Mr. Kenouf's Letter, of June 20, 1868, to the V.'
minster Gazette.

62 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 5, and the Letter
quoted in the preceding note.

63 The Avholt' passage is a* follows: " ( hunt's hn-ivticje asser-
tionis auctoivs. ynrran<l<> rrnsrntr nmrilio cnndemnati, de Ca-
tholicae Ecclesiiv adunatione projecti sunt, id est, Tlirul,nis Phara-
nitanus i-piscopu.-. Cyrus Alrxandrinus, Srr^ius, Paulus, et Petrus,
quondam Constantinopolitani pr;esules, ct una rum eis Ilonorius
ll'-manus, jui inimacitlatam aposti'ilicn.- traditi>iiis rogulam, quam

116 The Sixth Synod and the

was condemned for the same reason. Had he thought
that Honorius was to be included among the " auc-
tores hrcreticrc assertionis," as one of them, he would
have put down his name with the others under the
same category, before or immediately following Paul,
Pyrrhus, and Peter : if he meant this, then una cum
els was no way required. But the Pope's meaning is,
that Honorius was associated with the rest in being
condemned, but not in the crime for which they were
condemned; and therefore it was necessary to use a
connecting phrase to make it known that Honorius
was not placed in every respect on a par with the
heretics condemned by the Council. In fact, Leo
immediately goes on to mention the cause of the
condemnation of Honorius, saying, "qui immacu-
latam apostolicae traditionis regulam, quam a prasde-
cessoribus suis accepit, maculari consensit." These
words render exactly the same idea as is conveyed
by the extracts quoted above from the other two
letters of Leo, and together with them they prove
to demonstration that Pope Leo characterised the
fault of Honorius in such a way as to exclude even
the slightest adhesion on his part to any error what-
ever. Now, reverting to Mr. Eenouf's objection,
we argue as follows : Pope Leo includes among the

a pra?decessoribus suis accepit, maculari consensit ; sed et Macarium,

&c et omnes hi cum Ario, Apollinario, &c uiiam

volimtatem unamque operationem prredicantes, doctrinam haereticam
impudenter defendere cona"bantur." Epist. v. Leonis II. ad Ervi-
gium (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1462).

Condemnation of Pope Iltnmrin*. 117

u tunnes A/, qui, uiiam voluntatem unamquc opera-
tionem pru'dirantes, doctrinain haereticam impudcn-
ter defender e conabantur," all those who had been
"haeretica} assertionis auctores." But he evidently
excludes from this class Pope Honorius; therefore
lie does not include him among the omnes hi. Had
he intended to do so, he would have contradicted
his own assertion; because he could not say that
Honorius had consented to the defilement of the
rule of the apostolic tradition, if that Pope had
been one of those who endeavoured impudently to
advocate an heretical doctrine. Mr. Renouf's con-
fusion of thought on this point is inexplicable.

As to the Liber Diurnus, we are at a loss to com-
prehend the stress Mr. Renouf lays on it as the best
support of his attack on Pope Honorius. The learned
Gamier, who was the first to publish a perfect edition
of that book, writes as follows in the preface : 64 " Cur
tandem prodeat [Liber Diurnus] fecit ha3C una, vel
sola, vel potissima causa, ut motam de Honorio qua?s-
tionem, magnaque ammorum contentione non tarn
agitatam, quam vexatam, ostenderem ita componi
posse, vel ipso centum fere summoruin Pontifical n
judicio, ut neque Sedis Apostolicrc, cujus mcum co-
lendic stud him nulli velim esse impar, fides niin-
quain vitiatu dicatur ; neque incredibiles fingantur
actorum Sextan Synodi aliorumque veterum monu-
mcntorum corruption is, cniod et liistorica doctrina
minim ({uantum abhorret ; neque Sexta Synodus, cui

LiluT JJiunms llll. PI', opera d studio J. (.lariu-vii S.J.
io, ctl. .Mi-nc, t. cv. J'l 1 . LL. \>. I '2

118 The Sixth Synod and the

legati Sedis Apostolica? prasfuerint, erroris arguatur ;
neque Honorius, quamvis omnino fuerit pravus, Mono-
thelismi culpa caruisse putandus sit."

u The principal and only reason for which the
Liber Diurnus is at length published, is, that the
controversy on Honorius, which has been so long
agitated, may be finally so settled by the judgment
of nearly one hundred Sovereign Pontiffs, that no
doubt may remain as to the truth that the faith of
the Apostolic See has never been defiled ; that strange
corruptions may no longer be introduced into the
acts of the Sixth Synod, and other ancient monu-
ments, in opposition to every principle of historical
criticism ; that 110 charge of error may be sustain-
able against the Sixth Synod, in which legates of
the Apostolic See presided ; and that while Hono-
rius is purged of the charge of Monothelism, he
may not be deemed guiltless of all fault."

Thus Gamier shows that not only does the Liber
Diurnus furnish documents which cast light on the
whole question of the Sixth Council, and of the con-
demnation of Honorius, but also it affords mate-
rials for the defence of that Pope against the charge
of heresy brought by his calumniators.

But there is more to be said. When the Arch-
bishop De Marca was preparing to compose a dis-
sertation in defence of Pope Honorius, his friend
Labbe sent to him an extract from the MS. copy of
the Liber Diurnus, on which De Marca set much
value, and which he determined to insert in his
Apology, with the other extracts which he had

Condemnation of Pope Jlvnuriu*. 119

already gathered together. 65 It might seem incre-
dible that the same passage which De Marca re-
garded as so valuable for the defence, is the very
one which Mr. Renouf, following in the steps of Dr.
Dollinger, 66 produces as an important part of the
case against that Pope ! G7

The passage is found in the second profession
of faith, of which Gregory II. seems to be the
author (715-731). It runs as follows: " Auctores
vero novi haretici dogmatis [anathematizamus], Ser-
gium, Pyrrhuin, Paulum, et Petrum Constantinopo-
litanos, una cum Honorio, qui pravis eorum asser-
tionibus fomentum impendit." 08 It is impossible to
help seeing that these words do not imply any more
than the foregoing extracts from Leo's letters. The
fact is that the character of being author of the new
heretical dogma is not attributed to Honorius, but
only to Sergius and the others. Honorius is con-
demned and anathematised with them, but not be-
cause he was one of the authors of the new heresy,
but because by his imprudent economy he fostered
and encouraged their iniquitous assertions. A dis-
tinction is here pointedly drawn between the heretics
and Honorius, and the cause of the condemnation of
each of the parties is clearly and distinctly stated.
We do not understand how these words could be so

65 Vita Arcliiep. P. De Marca scriphi a Ualutio. In Op. de
Marca, cd. Parisiis, 16G3, p. 29.
' Papst Fal.cln, pp. 138, 139.

67 The Condemnation <>f P<p< Ilmmrius, p. 6.

68 Liber Diiirnus lili. PP. < -ap. ii. tit. ix. Pi\>iVssiu secimdu,
Fidei, p. :>-2. ed. Mipu . t. cv. PP. LL.

120 The Sixth Synod and the

far misconstrued as to make them represent Hono-
rius to have been condemned in the same way as
Sergius and his followers. What surprises us is
that Mr. Eenouf quotes the above extract without
the least remark, as if it were obvious that it told
against Honorius; and he assumes that his readers
will extract from it a sense which it evidently ex-
cludes.

We must not omit to notice in this place what
Mr. Renouf says of the similarity between the texts,
both Greek and Latin, of Leo's letter to the Em-
peror, which we examined above, and another pass-
age of the second profession of faith in the Liber
Diurnus.^ We will give the whole of the latter
passage : " Eos qui novo et hasretico dogmate hn-
maculatam Dei Ecclesiam polluere nitebantur, et er-
rasse manifestius probaverunt [Patres vi. Synodi],
et cum sui erroris auctoribus atque fautoribus per-
petuo anathemate damnaverunt." 70 Mr. Renouf pro-
duces only one-half of this passage, going no farther
than the word "probaverunt;" moreover, he omits
the conjunctive particle "et," and prints in italics
the word " errasse." All this goes to show that
the readers of the pamphlet are intended to con-
clude that in the second pontifical profession of
faith Pope Honorius is judged to have erred, since
he is comprehended among those who immaculatam
conabantur corrumpere Ecclesiam, according to the
Latin text of Leo's letter to Constantine. But if

69 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 1 3, in note.

70 Liber Diurnus, 1. c. p. 51.

Condemnation of Pope Honorius. 1-1

we consider the passage in its entirety, no difficulty
will remain on the point. For in the foregoing
extract three classes of men are mentioned as con-
demned by the Sixth Synod : (1.) those who simply
nitebantur corrumpere Ecclesiam novo et hccretico </<>;/-
mate; (2.) those who had been erroris auctores ;
(3.) and those who had been in any manner favour-
able to it, fautores. ]S T ow, after a few lines, the
names are found of those who are designated as
condemned by the Council. Here likewise they are
distributed into three classes: (1.) auctores novi hce-
retici dogmatis, i. e. Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter,
Theodore of Pharan, and Cyrus of Alexandria ; (2.)
ij'ii prai'is eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit,
namely, Honorius alone ; (3.) qui hceretica dogmata
contra veritatem fidei synodaliter declaratam at<pic
prcedicatam pertinaciter defcndd>ant, cum umnibas hce-
retids scriptis atque sctjnacilnix, qui unam execrabi-
lift'i 1 asserebant voluntatem et unam operationem in
(.'/trixto; and under this head follow the names of
^Macarius, Stephen, and Polychronius, and others.
Now if we contrast the two passages, it will appear
evident that Honorius, qui fomentum impendit, is not
included either in the first or in the second category
of the first extract, but only in the third, fautoribu*.
Neither are we forced by the word u fautoribus"
to admit in Honorius any intellectual adhesion to
error ; for the silence of the Pastors of the Church
when they ought to raise up tlu-ir voice against
error and heresy, according to the ecclesiastical
canons, is to be accounted as an encouragement

122 The Sixth Synod and the

given to error and heresy. So that the passage in
question, far from telling against the purity of Hono-
rius' faith, affords a new confirmation of our asser-
tion.

But let us now examine a passage concerning
Honorius' condemnation, which we find in the old
Roman Breviary in the lesson for the feast of St.
Leo II., the 28th of June. 71

Mr. Renouf remarks in his pamphlet that " till
the seventeenth century the Roman Breviary spoke
of the confirmation by Pope Leo II. of the holy
Sixth Synod, in which were condemned Cyrus, Ser-
gius, Honorius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, qui unam
voluntatem et operationem in Domino Jesu Christo
dixerunt et pra3dicarunt." 72 We must warn our
readers not to fall into a very possible mistake here :
it would be incorrect to suppose that the name of
Honorius is mentioned in all the old Latin Breviaries
among the persons condemned by the Sixth Synod.
In some very old Breviaries of this country no name
at all is found, either of Honorius or of the others
condemned in that Council. In the Sarum Breviary
of the fourteenth century we read, in the lessons
for the feast of St. Leo: " Hie Leo suscepit Sextam
Synodum, quee per Dei providentiam celebrata est,
simulque cum eo legati Sedis ApostolieaB et duo Patri-
archs, id est Constantinopolis et Antiochiae, etiam
150 Episcopi ; in qua condemnati sunt haeretici qui

71 In festo S. Leonis Papse, die 28 Jimii, Lect. iv. secundi
nocturni.

72 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 6.

ConJciniKit'ion of Pope Uononus. 123

imam tantum voluntatem et operationcm in Domino
Jesu Christo dicebant." 73 In the Aberdeen Breviary,
which is of the fifteenth century, we find the fol-
lowing words : " Leo suscepit Sextain Synodum
intra rcgiuin palatium Constantini Magni turn vi-
ventis, in qua condemnati sunt hseretici qui dixerunt
unam tantum esse V 7 oluntatem et operationem in
Christo." 74

As to the Roman Breviary, we think it well
to transcribe here the whole passage as it exists
in the old Breviary, 75 for Mr. Renouf does not
give us the entire extract. It runs as follows :
" In qua [Synodo] condemnati sunt Cyrus, Ser-
gius, Honorius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, et Pet r us, nee non
et Macarius, cum suo discipulo Stephano, sed et Poly-
chronius, Novus, et Simon, qui unam voluntatem
et operationem in D. N. J. C. dixerunt vel prae-
dicarunt, aut qui denuo prsedicaturi fuerint [fue-
rant] aut dispensaverint [dispensaverant]."

Now the foregoing words, and the rest of the
lessons, are copied word for word from the life of
Leo, written by Anastasius, 76 the librarian of the
Roman Church, from which also the lessons of the
Sarum and Aberdeen Breviaries are taken, with some
abridgment, except that in the Roman compilation
the words u Xovus et Simon" are found by mistake,

73 "We quote from a MS. copy of the Sarum Breviary preserved
in the library of Stonyhurst Coll

Aberdense Breviarium, pars a-stiva, fol. x.
7 \\V usi- the two editions of Rome 1478 and Paris 1511.

Hist..ria d.- Vitis Rom. Pontif. n. Ixxxii. ,-d. ^ligne, t. cxxviii.
PP. LL. p. S17.

124 The Sixth Synod and the

instead of "novus Simon," and the word "dispensa-
verint" for " defensaverint." In the appendix to the
lives of the Roman Pontiffs of Anastasius, evidently
extracted from the work of the Pontifical librarian,
and written in the ninth century, we read in the
life of St. Leo the same passage, but without the
words " qui unam voluiitatem et operationem in D.
X. J. C. dixerunt et praedicarunt." 77 Now the ques-
tion arises, whether Anastasius intended to say that
Honorius asserted and defended one will and ope-
ration in Christ. In the life of Pope Agatho he
relates that, after the sentence of condemnation
pronounced by the Sixth Council, "abstulerunt de
diptycis Ecclesiarum nomina Patriarcharum, vel de
picturis Ecclesia3 figuras eorum, aut in foribus ubi
esse poterant, auferentes, id est Cyri, Sergii, Pauli,
Pyrrhi, Petri, per quos error orthodox fidei usque
nunc pullulavit" 1 * Anastasius here suppressed the
name of Honorius, evidently because the character
of having been the source of the heresy could not
be applied to him, but only to the Monothelite Patri-
archs. In the appendix mentioned above the anony-
mous author has transcribed the entire passage with-
out any alteration whatever. 79

But apart from this, whoever is acquainted with
the Collectanea addressed by Anastasius to John
the Deacon, and published by the learned Sirmondi,
must be aware that the Eoman Librarian never

77 Appendix ad Vitas Eomanorum Pontificum, n. Ixxxii. ex
codice Cap. Veron. (In op. cit. Anastasii, ed. cit. p. 1422.)

78 Op. cit. Anastasii Bibl. n. Ixxxi. p. 811, t. ii. op. ed. Migne.

79 App. cit. n. Ixxxi. p. 1422. In t. ii. op. Anastasii, ed. Migne.

of Pope Honor in*. 125

harboured the idea that Pope Honorius had said,
or taught, or held in any manner, that in Jesus
Christ there was only one will and one operation.
He calls those "calumniators" who said that Pope
Honorius had ever asserted one only will in Christ ;
and he distinctly maintained that the Pope can by
no means be considered as condemned for heresy in
the Sixth Synod. 80 Now, after those declarations,
how can we believe that Anastasius would simply
assert in the life of Leo, without any remark or
any mitigating expression, that Pope Honorius had
been condemned because of his having denied the
two wills and operations in Christ? It might be
said that Anastasius in this place represents Hono-
rius as guilty in solid um of the same crime with
the others, although not in the same manner. But
we believe that another explanation of the passage in
question may fairly be given. "We can venture to say,
in the first place, that all the matter relating to the
Sixth Synod and the sentences of condemnation it
passed is summarised by the author from the letter
of Leo to the Emperor Constantiiie, from which also
is taken the portion we have quoted of the second
profession of faith in the Liber Diumus. Now Pope
Leo in his letter, after anathematising the authors
of Monothelism and Pope Honorius himself, for the
reason we mentioned above, anathematises Macarius,
his disciple Stephen, and Poly chron ins, whom he calls

"Pro Pupa Honoriu a ealumniatonbufl impetito, quod nnam
1'. X. .T. < '. tantum smpsrrit voluntatem." Collectanea ad Joan-
L>ian.Hiim, 'd. Mi-iir. t. cxxix. PP. LL. p. 558 seq.

126 The Sixth Synod and the

the new Simon, and finally all those who hold the
same maxims, and who had dared, or ever should
dare, to assert in Christ one will and one operation. 81
Likewise in the second profession of faith in the
Liber Diurnus, those heretics are first anathematised
who had originated the error of Monothelism, and
Honorius, who had fostered it by his imprudent
economy. Next to these, Macarius, his disciple
Stephen, and Polychronius (the new Simon), and
finally all their followers, " qui unam execrabili-
ter asserebant voluntatem et unam operationem in
Christo." 82 Now Anastasius in his life of St. Leo
carefully distinguished all the categories of persons
who had been condemned in the Sixth Council.
He merely suppressed the grounds of condemnation
stated by St. Leo in his letter to Constantine and
in the second profession of faith. But since the
last category mentioned in both those documents
did not imply any particular person, but, in a gene-
ral way, all those who either had asserted, or should
in future assert, one will and one operation in Christ,
therefore Anastasius expressed it by the same words.
Again, in the passage in question, the Roman libra-
rian sets before us all the classes of persons who
had been condemned by the Sixth Synod, in the
same order as that in which they occur in the two

81 v Er/ St %at rovg ra ft/Mia, avrZiv ppovqffavTag, q ppovovvrag

/ tv deXri/J^a xai ftiav evegystav (paffxeiv /tararoXfAfiffavrag, &G.
Epistola Leoiiis II. Papse ad Constantinum Imp. (Labbe, t. vii.
p. 1156.)

82 Liber D minus, c. ii. Secunda professio Fidei. (Migne, t.
cv. PP. LL. p. 52, 53.)

Condemnation of Pope Honorius. 127

above-mentioned documents. In the first class he
places those who had died before the date of the
Council, and among them he mentions Honorius, but
without stating the cause of condemnation of any
of the number. To the first he subjoins the other
class of those who had obstinately defended their
error before the Sixth Synod itself (nee non, &c.);
in the last place comes the class of those unnamed
persons who either had denied, or should ever deny
in the future, the two wills and operations in Christ.
If Anastasius had put a conjunctive particle between
this additional class and the others, as is done by
St. Leo in his letter to the Emperor, and by the
author of the second profession of faith, the mean-
ing of his words would have been perfectly clear
and evident. 83 Mr. Renouf, by quoting only the
latter portion of the passage which he found in the
Roman Breviary, deprives his readers of the means
of discovering the true meaning.

Again, Mr. Renouf complains that "the name

83 We may quote another passage from the acts of the Council,
as an additional confirmation of the foregoing just given. The pass-
age is extracted from the acclamations at the end of the Synod.
" Theodoro Pharanitse anathema; Sergio et Hoiiorio ana tin -ma ;
Pyrrho ct Paulo anathema; Gyro et Petro anathema; Macario et
Stephano et Polycronio anathema ; omnibus hsereticis anathema ;
//>// in'if'lii'iir t -riiiit ct j>r<l !>-<i i/t >t ,lu,-i-)it et doctnr! mint inxdn
roliiiifnti i,/ ft iiinmi opcr<ition>'ii> in il'<.i uxntinne D. N. J. C. ana-
tln-iiHt." Act. xviii. (Labbe, t. vii. p. 1079). Here again we see
the same order kept with regard to the names of those who are
anathematised; and the last words, which are very similar to those
in (|iirstioii, do not ivfVr to the foregoing names, but imply in a
general way all lli^so who either had taught, or were teaching, or

Would OVtT tt-acll Moliothrli-lll.

128 The Sixth Synod and the

of Honorius is no longer to be found in the Brevi-
ary, but the other names are still retained;" and he
remarks that " it is most unjust to suppress the
name of Honorius, and yet retain the other names." 84
The Union Review, eulogising the masterly pamplilet
which we are considering, says that fact alone speaks
volumes. 85 Now the remark is founded entirely on
error. It is not true that in the Eoman Breviary,
as reformed by order of the Council of Trent, all
the other names were retained. Out of nine, only
three were retained ; namely Cyrus, Sergius, and
Pyrrhus, the very authors and first propagators of
Monothelism. 86 The names of Paul, Peter, Macarius,
Stephen, and Polychronius, as well as that of Hon-
orius, were expunged, because it was not necessary
to state in a short lesson the names of all the here-
tics condemned in the Council, much less of Hono-
rius, who had not been anathematised for any error
whatever, and whom an ignorant reader might have
believed to have been condemned for heresy, be-
cause his name was found in the same list with
some who were undoubtedly condemned for that
crime. But what Mr. Renouf adds after the above-
quoted words, in order to justify his assertion, is per-

84 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 6 and note ; Union
Keview, July 1868, p. 881.

85 An argument had been founded on this fact more than a
hundred and fifty years ago by the Author of the Defensio De-
cl < D'ationis Cleri Gallicani, p. ii. 1. xii. c. xxvi. t. ii. p. 191. Basileae,,
1730.

86 See the Lesson iv. of the feast of St. Leo II. on the 28th
of June. (Romanum Breviarium, ex Deer. Cone. Trid.)

Condemnation of Pope Honorius. 129

haps the most absurdly false statement of the many
that occur in his ill-starred pamphlet.

u Sergius," he says, " presented his confession to
the Pope, who simply approved it ; and he died
without the slightest intimation from Rome that his
doctrine was anything but orthodox. Had he been
a perfect Ultramontane, he could not have acted
otherwise." So then Mr. Renouf puts Pope Hono-
rius on the same level with Sergius, and represents
this latter as orthodox till the time of his death,
the Patriarch, that is, who forged the libellus
of Mennas to Pope Vigilius, and that of Vigilius
to the Emperor Justinian, in order to support his
Monothelism ; both which documents were condemned
by the Sixth Synod as heretical forgeries. 87 But
after what we have said in our first three sections,
the remark of Mr. Renouf is not worth a further
answer.

It now only remains for us to examine the purport
of the anathemas inflicted on Honorius by the Coun-
cils which followed the Sixth Synod ; for the ene-
mies of Pope Honorius, and Mr. Renouf among them,
remind us that the Seventh and Eighth (Ecumenical
Councils joined in the condemnation of Honorius ;
therefore our writer concludes : " the condemnation
for heresy of a Pope by three (Ecumenical Councils,
and a long series of 1 Ionian Pontiffs, is utterly sub-
versive of the theory of Papal Infallibility." 88 We
have ahvady destroyed this consequence, by showing,

87 Concilium vi. act. xiv. (Lal>l>e, t. vii. p. 1014 seq.)
ss The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 7.

K

130 The Sixth Synod and the

not only that no heretical tenet is contained in the
letters of Pope Honorius, but also that the Sixth
Synod did not condemn him either for any erroneous
ex cathedra teaching, or for any heresy whatever.
With regard to the Seventh and Eighth Councils, we
again remark, in answer to Mr. Renouf, that even if
those Synods had condemned Honorius for heresy,
it would not follow from this that the doctrine of
Papal Infallibility is untenable, unless it is first
shown that Honorius was anathematised for having
taught heresy ex cathedra. Mr. Renouf is quite un-
able to prove this point, especially when we consider
that both these Synods solemnly acknowledged the
doctrine of Papal Infallibility ; when the Seventh
submitted itself unreservedly to the letter of Pope
Adrian I., in which that maxim was enforced, and
perfect adhesion to it was imposed; 89 and when, in
the Eighth, the profession of faith of Pope Adrian II.
was unanimously received, in which the previous for-
mulary of Honorius was inserted, declaring that the
Catholic doctrine had always been preserved in its
integrity in the Roman Apostolic See. 90 We abstain
from commenting on these facts, which we shall
fully explain in our work upon Papal Infallibility.
For the present we limit ourselves to examining
whether it is true that the two Councils mentioned
really condemned Honorius for heresy. Certainly

89 Adrian! I. Epistola ad Tarasium. In act. ii. Cone, vii, Ni-
cseni ii. (Labbe, t. viii. p. 771 seq.)

90 Libellus fidei Adriani II. ad Synodum viii. In act. i.
Cone. Const, iv. CEcum. viii. (Labbe, t. x. p. 497.)

Condemnation of Pope Honorius. 131

the Seventh Council has nothing which counten-
ances the assertion. We do not here take no-
tice of several passages of the Seventh Synod in
which Honorius' condemnation is mentioned, as,
for instance, in the letter of Tarasius, 91 in that of
Theodore, 92 in the tomus of the Deacon Epiphanius, 93
and in a letter of Tarasius to the Clergy of Constan-
tinople. 94 Those passages are not the utterances of
the Synod, and cannot therefore be relied upon to
represent its opinion in the matter. The view of
the Council may be said to be expressed only in the
profession of faith, and in the synodical letter ad-
dressed to the Emperor ; and in neither of these
documents can anything be found against our asser-
tion. In the profession of faith the Fathers of the
second Xicene Council declare that they received all
the definitions of the (Ecumenical Councils ; there-
fore, mentioning the Sixth Synod, they say : " Like-
wise we profess in Christ two wills and two opera-
tions, according to the propriety of His two natures,
as the Sixth Synod of Constantinople proclaimed ;
and we cut off Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus,
and Macarius, who were not willing to keep faithful
to God, and those who follow their mind." 95 Now

91 Epistola Tarasii Patr. Constant. In act. iii. Cone. Nic. ii.
(Labbe, t. viii. p. 813.)

"-' Kpist. Theodori Patr. Antioch. In act. iii. cit. (Labbe, 1. c.
p. 832.)

93 Tomus secundus Epiphanii Diaconi. In act. vi. Cone. Nlc. ii.
(Labbe,!. c. p. K)7i>.)

94 Epist. Tarasii P.( '. al ('It-rum ( 'onstantinop. In act. vii.
Cone. Nic. ii. (Labbe, 1. c. p. 1^7.)

95 Terminus Synodi Nicamte Secunda?. In act. vii. (Labbe,

132 The Sixth Synod and the

in this passage there is nothing which goes to prove
the assertion of Mr. Renouf, that Pope Honorius was
anathematised by the Seventh Council as a Mono-
thelite. 96 The Fathers of Mcsea mention what the
Sixth Council did, without characterising the con-
demnation of those who had been anathematised
by the Synod. In the synodical letter they ana-
thematise again all those who had been condemned
by the six preceding Councils, and among them
Honorius ; but they do not specify the crime for
which he had been stricken with anathema by the
Sixth Synod. 97 Undoubtedly the words of the
Eighth Council are apparently stronger, but do not
really carry any greater weight than, the decree of
condemnation of the Sixth Synod. In fact, in the
Greek compilation of the Acts of the Eighth Council
it is said that, "after the canons (sanctioned by
the Fathers), the definition was read of the same
Eighth and (Ecumenical Synod, which comprehends
the symbol of faith, the profession of the seven pre-
ceding Synods, and the anathemas against those
whom the Synods had condemned." 98 The Eighth
Council, therefore, did not intend to pronounce a

t. viii. p. 1205.) natf ov rpovov xal 57 ev K-toVGravrivowTroXsi SKTVJ ovv-
080$ e<s[36qffzv, avroxpv^atfa, "Segyiov, ' Ovwpiov, x. r. A. rove, adzX^TOvg
Tjjg svfcfitiag xal roug TOVTUV opopgovac.

96 The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 6.

97 Concilium Nicsemmi ii. act. vii. (Labbe, t. viii. p. 1232.)
avaQt/AariGavrss . . . 2ggy/oy, %ai ' Ovugiou, xal K-J^OK, /cat IIUOU,
xa} rqv ffitv auro/? /j,ovodeXr t rov, /taXXov ds xaxo&fojrov (SovXyffiv.

98 Cone. Constantinop. iv. act. x. (Labbe, t. x. ex Actis Gnecis,
p. 881.)

Condemnation <>f J *<>/><' Himurin*. 133

new sentence against Honorius and the others ; nor
could the assembled Fathers do it, inasmuch as no
conciliar examination liad preceded. The words re-
ferring to Honorius and the others in the definition
cannot, then, have any other meaning than that in-
tended by the Sixth Synod itself," since the Fathers
do no more than relate as a matter of history the
condemnation of Honorius with the other Eastern
Prelates. Now, when speaking of the decree of con-
demnation pronounced against Honorius in the Sixth
Synod, we remarked that, according to the principles
of both civil and ecclesiastical law, Honorius can be
said to have been guilty in solidum of the crime of
the others ; not because he was a Monothelite, as
Sergius and Cyrus, but because by his imprudent
policy and grievous negligence he consented to the
pollution of the Immaculate Church ; because he
did not at the first outbreak extinguish the flame of
the heretical error, but fostered it by his culpable
remissness. No wonder then, if, in the following
Councils, he is anathematised, together with the
others, in solidum. The Fathers of the Seventh and

99 The words of the Council are as follows, according to the
translation of Anastasius : Anatbemaii/amiis Theodnrum <[iii fuit
Episcopus I'liaran, et Sorgium. et l'\ rrlnim, et Paulum, ac IVtrum,
impius Tru'sules Conatantinopolitanorum Kci-le.sin?, atque cum iis
Honorium Kom;r, una cum <'yr> Alexandrite, necnon et Macarium
Antiochi;i', ac disripulum ejus Stepliainim, [ui mal;e opinionis Apol-
linarii et Eutychetis et S.-vcri im])ionim ha-ivsiaivharuni dogmata
srctaiitrs, sin.' ..pi-rationr ac sim- v.-luntato animatam anima ration-
abili et intellectuabili Dei carncm, sensilms LI sis. ct revera sine
ratione pr8edicaverunt. n Cone. ('oust. iv. ad. x. Terminus
Syimdi. ( Labile, 1. c. ex Ana.sta.^ii versioiie, p. G53.)

134 The Sixth Synod and the

of the Eighth Councils might well suppose the his-
tory and the details of the condemnations pronounced
in the Sixth Synod to be sufficiently known. They
had in hand the settlement of perfectly different ques-
tions. In their definition, they gave, as was usual,
no more than a summary sketch of the tenets and
of the condemnations decreed in the preceding Coun-
cils, from the acts of which any further explanation
and particulars might be gathered. In the passage
mentioned above, the Fathers of the Eighth Synod
describe in a general way the crime for which the
Third of Constantinople pronounced its decree of
condemnation in its thirteenth session. But they
by no means intended that their words should be
applied to Honorius in the same sense as they are
applied to Sergius and the others. Otherwise it
would have been the solemn proclamation of a
calumny to assert that Honorius had maintained
that Christ's humanity had no operation, when, in
truth, he had pointedly maintained the exact con-
trary. No ; Honorius did not teach that heresy ;
but by his culpable negligence and imprudent eco-
nomy of silence he permitted it to be taught and
widely spread. He became, therefore, responsible
for it, and partook in the crime of its authors. In
this sense, and in this sense only, can we receive
the words of the Eighth Council, which, if taken
in a contrary meaning, would be mendacious and
calumnious. Nor can the expressions used by Pope
Adrian II., in his third address to the Council,
afford the least support to Mr. Renouf 's view, since

Condemnation of Pope Honorius. 135

Adrian II. never asserted that Pope Honorius had
been condemned for heresy, but that he had been
sup( i' Jtatresi accusatus.

The Roman librarian Anastasius, who, as Mr.
Renouf tells us, " took an active part in the Eighth
Council," does not assert that the Sixth Synod con-
demned Honorius for heresy, but only that it anathe-
matised him, as if he were a heretic (quasi haeretico) ; 100
that is to say, the Council put him on a par with the
others in the severity of its sentence, but not in
the crime for which he was condemned. What, then,
is the meaning of a Council pronouncing an anathema
against a Prelate after his death ? It implies no-
thing but that his name was to be erased from the
diptychs, and his likeness from the pictures in the
churches ; because it was customary, especially from
the beginning of the seventh century, for the names
of all orthodox Bishops to be inserted hi the dip-
tychs, and their portraits exposed in the churches.
Now Anastasius relates that, after the sentence of
the Sixth Synod, the names of Sergius, Cyrus, Paul,
Pyrrhus, and Peter were expunged from the diptychs,
and the pictures of them destroyed ; but he does not
say anything of the name of Honorius having been
erased, or of his images being removed from the
churches or effaced. 101 His name undeniably is found
in the Oriental diptychs, 102 and we still have the lau-

100 Collectanea Epist. ad Joaimeni, 1. c. t. iii. op. p. 559, ed.

101 Vita3 RR. PP. Vita Agathonis Papse, ed. Migne, op. t. ii.
p. 811.

102 "Honorium Pontificem in Orientalium diptycliis inscriptuni

136 The Sixth Synod.

datory notices which accompanied his name. 103 All
things tend to corroborate the view that the severe
sentence pronounced by the Sixth Synod against that
Pope was tempered in its execution, because he had
not been condemned for heresy.

vidimus," says Baronius in Annalibus, an. 681, n. liv. t. viii. p. 622,
ed. Colonize.

103 See them in Baronius, op. cit. an. 638. n. ii. seq. t. viii.
p. 638 seq.

CONCLUSION.

THE chief argument of those who have at any
time disputed Papal Infallibility, is the fall and con-
demnation of Pope Honorius. Many Galilean writers
made this the key of their whole position, differing
in this from the Jansenists, who sought to secure
an argument against the infallibility of the Church
on dogmatic facts by vindicating the orthodoxy of
Honorius. Dr. Dollinger and Mr. Renouf have in
their pamphlets again dressed up the old story of
the fall of Honorius and his condemnation as a means
of attack against Papal Infallibility, and an instru-
ment for restoring, if possible, that illogical system
of Gallicanism which should be condemned by every
learned and impartial man. The Union Review of
July last (1868) agrees, and extols to the skies the
masterly pamphlet si Mr. Renouf, of which it expresses
its doubts whether Honorius' lapse and condemna-
tion " has ever been exhibited so clearly and fully
or with such crushing force as here." 1 Certainly
Mr. Renouf has shown great cleverness in having
summed up in twenty- six pages, without a single
omission, all the mistakes and errors usually made
by those who have written against Honorius, and
added, moreover, no small number of his own. At
all events, we have proved to demonstration what

1 Union Review, July 1868, p. 381.

138 Conclusion.

Catholic theologians hold for certain that Honorius'
letters did not contain anything which can fairly be
construed as an utterance ex cathedra; and that the
Sixth Council did not condemn him for anything like
an ex cathedrd teaching of error. This would have
been sufficient to blunt the edge of a weapon which
our adversaries have continually used against Papal
Infallibility. But it would not have been sufficient
to do justice io Pope Honorius, nor to satisfy the
claims of gratitude towards him. In this country
the memory of Pope Honorius should be held in
immortal honour, and his name arouse feelings of
veneration and gratitude. He was the happy heir
of the glorious work begun by the great Gregory
on behalf of this nation. He encouraged with his
paternal letters Edwin, the powerful King of North-
umbria, to hold out in defence of Christianity against
the swelling tide of paganism, and to bear in mind
the affection and instructions given by his illustri-
ous predecessor. 2 He it was that confirmed with
his apostolic words Paulinus, who had been sent by
St. Gregory to preach to the Northumbrians ; and
he it was that rewarded the Saint for his glorious
success with the pallium. 3 It was this great Pope
that consoled and supported the missionaries occu-
pied with the conversion of the Angles and East
Saxons, and in an especial manner his namesake
Honorius, archbishop of Canterbury, who was at the
head of that evangelical enterprise, and who also

2 Beda, Historia Ecclesiastica, 1. ii. c. xvii. ed. Migne, op. t. vi.
pp. 109, 110. 3 Ib. 1. c. p. 109.

Conclusion. 139

deserved to receive the pallium at the hands of the
same Pontiff. 4 Moreover, whilst he laboured to give
new vigour to Christianity in those parts of England
where it had been already introduced by the zeal of
St. Gregory, he did not forget the portion of the
Saxon nation which was still lying in the darkness
of paganism. He sent a new apostle, Birinus, to
preach the gospel to the warlike people of Wessex,
and to withstand the idolatry of Mercia, which
threatened to overflow and sweep away Christianity
from the north and the east of the island. 5 Bede,
the most learned man who appeared among the
Saxons in the seventh and eighth century, knew well
how to appreciate the virtues of Pope Honorius. In
his Ecclesiastical History of the English nation he
represented Honorius as a perfect pastor ; 6 but in
the life of the Abbot Bertolf he speaks at length
in his praise. He calls him a holy and venerable
Pontiff, clear-sighted and resolute, illustrious for his
learning, and of remarkable meekness and humility. 7
And although in his work De Ratione Temporum he
mentions his condemnation by the Sixth Synod, he
abstains from adding any remark whatever tending
to cast a slur on the memory of the Pontiff. 8 If

4 Beda, 1. c. et c. xviii. p. Ill seq.

5 Ib. 1. iii. c. vii. p. 126 seq.

6 See tin- plans (juuti'tl above from Bede's history.

7 Botla, Vita S. Bertolfi Abbatis, op. t. iii. <!. IlasiL-jp, p. 344.

"Sanctus Papa era! vrnrraHlis pra-sul lloimrius,

aniiiiM, vixens consilio, doctriua clams, dulcedino et humilitate
pollens," &c.

8 Beda, De Ratione Temporum, c. Ixvi. p. 567, 568, op. t. i.
cd. Migue.

140 Conclusion.

Mr. Renouf, in the extensive studies he has made of
ecclesiastical literature, had met with these facts and
reflected upon them, he would not have forgotten
the regard due to a Pope, to whose paternal and
apostolic endeavours, after Gregory the Great, Eng-
land is indebted for its conversion to Christianity.
Even if Pope Honorius had been condemned for
heresy, gratitude for benefits received from him
should have suggested moderation and forbearance
to an Englishman when forced to speak on the sub-
ject. But when justice and gratitude are on the
same side, the tone which it is fitting to take is less
easily mistaken.

Having taken in hand the full discussion of the
cause of Pope Honorius, and the vindication of him
from all heresy whatever, it was our duty to exa-
mine the doctrine contained in his letters, and to
inquire into the opinion which his contemporaries
had formed of his orthodoxy. But beyond this, we
have made a principal subject of our inquiry the
condemnation pronounced by the Sixth Council, in
order to show its purport, and the nature of the
fault for which Honorius was condemned. We have
willingly gone into this inquiry at some length, not
only because the justification of Honorius principally
depends upon it, but also because by clearing him
from every imputation of heresy we strike at the
very root of the argument of the adversaries of
Papal Infallibility, and wrest from them that scrap
of ground on which they strive to make good their
footing. The general persuasion of men of the great-

Conclusion. 141

est ability and learning, both of the present and
of the preceding century, is in our favour, and the
few exceptions are of no value in the matter; es-
pecially if we take into account their want of solid
learning, their prejudices, and the passionate and
bitter temper in which they write. Dr. Dollinger,
who tried to call in question the almost unanimous
opinion of Catholic writers in favour of Pope Ho-
norius' orthodoxy, was answered by F. Schneeman,
who not only clearly proved his own assertion, but
also exposed the distortions and misrepresentations
by which the Munich professor had endeavoured to
draw under his own flag theologians who stood in
the opposite ranks. 9 In our own argument we have
not had recourse to the expedient of raising suspi-
cions of forgery ; we throw no doubt on the genuine-
ness of any of the existing documents which bear
upon the question. We have admitted them, and as
they exist in their original language, although we
cannot feel sure that the Greek translation of the
original letters of Honorius represents accurately the
literal meaning of each expression they contained.
We have acknowledged that Honorius was in fault,
and we have pointed out precisely what his fault was,
in accordance with the very documents which our
adversaries produce. In this manner we have main-
tained the justice of the decree pronounced by the
Sixth Synod against Honorius, while at the same
time we do not approve a certain want of considera-

9 See his pamphlet, Studien iiber die Honorius-Frage, von G.

Sclinei-iiiaii S. .1. : Fiviburu. 1864,

142 Conclusion.

tion for the memory of the deceased Pontiff, and
some bitterness of feeling manifested by the Oriental
Prelates.

But though thus admitting his fault, we have been
far from making any charge of secret corruption of in-
tention against the Pontiff. Nor was this necessary
in order to justify the sentence of the (Ecumenical
Council ; for the axiom, Ecclesia non judicat de in-
ternis, is to be applied to all the judgments of the
coercive power of the Church. Nor are we even
forced to believe that Honorius either remained till
death unaware of his fault, or that, if he became
aware of it, he did not expiate it by true satisfactory
penance. Long before the Sixth Synod assembled,
the Fifth Council had decided in the affirmative the
question, whether it were lawful to anathematise,
even for heresy, persons who had died in the com-
munion of the Church. Accordingly, it anathe-
matised Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas, with their
writings, although they had submitted to the Con-
fession of Faith sanctioned at Chalcedon, and had
been declared orthodox by the Council. The Church,
MS we remarked above, when condemning persons
who have already gone before the judgment -seat of
God, cannot mean to influence the sentence already
pronounced on them by the Eternal Judge. Nor
does the sentence of the Church give any certainty
of their having been condemned by Christ. The
Church condemns the fault they committed in their
lifetime, as it appeared before her tribunal ; she
strikes their names from the diptychs, and erases their

Conclusion. 143

figures from the churches, in order to repair the evil
consequences of their faults, and to caution their suc-
cessors against falling into the same crimes.

Such is the method and such are the principles
on which we have written this essay. As to Mr.
Renouf, we cannot say what his leading principles
are ; but we are sure that no true English Catholic
will congratulate him on his scandalous pamphlet
against the memory of Pope Honorius. Mr. Eenouf,
as it appears from his writing, wants to produce
division amongst the Catholics of this country by
bringing into popular use the Gallican distinction
between Ultramontanes and non - Ultramontanes.
But true and sincere Catholics reject and condemn
a distinction, the invention of a degenerate party in
the truly Catholic French nation, and serving only
to adulterate the true idea of Catholicism. And
" Catholic" is the only name w^hich is or ever can
be properly applied to the children of the one true
Church, to distinguish them from all sects what-
ever. All who are not with them in the unity of
one Faith and one Pastor are against them, and
cannot be entitled to that denomination. But those
only are in their communion, in the communion of
the Catholic Church, who follow in all things the
Apostolic See, and profess all its doctrines, and
entirely submit to all its decisions : 10 the others are
false brethren, who may have crept into the Church
in order to spread scandal and to encourage discord ;

10 See tlie dogmatic formula of faith imposed l>y Ilormisdas on
the Orientals after the Acucian schism.

144 Conclusion.

but not in order to spread the Gospel, and to extend
the mystical Body of Christ. The word Ultramon-
tane, applied to those Catholics who believe in Papal
Infallibility, is in our times an insult to the Catholic
faith ; for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is not an
opinion of a party, who incline to exaggerated notions
of Papal prerogatives; it is not an offspring of the
Isidorian Decretals; but it is the doctrine of the
Apostolic See, the doctrine of Pius IX., as well as of
all the Popes who, in the first century, gave witness
to the divinity of their faith with their own blood ;
it is the doctrine of the Episcopate of the Catholic
Church ; which men full of a spirit of party tried to
stamp out in the Church, in order that they might
substitute in its place the infallibility of the state
and of the civil ruler. 11 We can easily bear that the
Voltaire-taught courtiers in France should give the
name of Ultramontanes to the Catholic defenders of
the privileges of the Holy See; but it is hard to
bear that insult from a man who professes to be a
Catholic and an obedient child of the Church.

But Mr. Eenouf, in a most objectionable Gallican
spirit, not only maintains that the Pope is subject to

11 See the remarks 011 the first rise of Gallicanism in The Pope
and the Church, p. i. sect. vii. p. 157 seq. The body of the Ca-
tholic Bishops expressly professed the doctrine of Papal Infallibility
in the address presented by them with, their signatures to Pius IX.
on the occasion of the centenary of St. Peter. Moreover, the
Bishops of different countries, especially of France, assembled in
provincial Synod, have unanimously adopted and professed that
doctrine in the course of this century. See Die kirchliche Lehr-
gewalt, von G. Schneeman, iv. p. 202 seq., p. 138 seq. Freiburg in
Brisgau, 1868.

Condition. \\')

the General Council, and would strip him both of
his infallibility and of the power he holds independ-
ently of the Catholic Episcopate ; it seems that he
considers the head of the Church to be bound to
obey the civil authority in the administration of the
Church. For what else does he mean when lie say-
that, "among other ignorant assertions which have
been common of late, it has been said that Popes
have never acknowledged themselves subject to hu-
man sovereigns, and that Christian sovereigns have
never claimed authority over Popes" ? 12 Does he
mean that some writers have asserted that the Popes
nowhere acknowledge themselves subject to Christian
Emperors in temporal matters ? If so, we answer
that such an opinion would not deserve any notice,
far less so long a notice in a short pamphlet on a
totally different argument. "We are not aware that
any writer has ever upheld the civil independence of
the Pope. But if any has done so, he certainly shows
great want of knowledge of civil and ecclesiastical
history. And further, if Mr. Renouf meant no more
than this, why did he mention the circumstance of
Charlemagne having been adoredby Pope Leo, accord-
ing to the Eastern practice, in proof of submission
of the Pontiff to the Emperor? When Leo III. met
Charlemagne, the Popes had already possessed their
temporal dominion as independent sovereigns for at
least forty-five years. 13 Neither did the coronation

12 The Condemnation of Pope Honoring p. 1 imto.

13 We count here from the y -ar 7 .VI, when the territory, which
the Lombards overran, was restored ly King Pepin to the Pope.

L

146 Conclusion.

of the founder of the Carlovingian dynasty as head
of the Holy Empire affect in the smallest degree the
temporal power and independence of the Pope. Mr.
Eenouf ought to be acquainted with these facts,
which are fundamental in the history of the Middle
Ages. Nevertheless, we have reason to think that
Mr. Eenouf means a total dependence of the Popes
upon the Emperors, extending even to ecclesiastical
matters. We are the more inclined to this view of
his meaning, because, as we remarked above, he is so
anxious to make us believe that the Emperor Con-
stantine was the true president of the Sixth Synod,
and interfered authoritatively in its proceedings. If
this is his meaning, he is altogether mistaken, as there
is abundant evidence to show. All the pretentious
quotations of his note prove nothing. The passages
of St. Agatho's letter to the Emperor either regard
the submission of Eome to the civil power of the
Emperor, or are mere set expressions of civility in
use at the time. Modern urbanity has not wholly
discarded the like, and the Popes were in the habit
of using such phrases in their letters to the Empe-
rors : their object was to show their humble devotion
to the civil power in temporal matters, without, how-
ever, giving up any portion of their spiritual inde-
pendence in the administration of the Church. But
it is more strange that Mr. Eenouf should quote the
Novels of Justinian, and particularly the 123d, in
proof of his assertion. He fancies he has found an
unanswerable argument when he has said that, in
this law, the Emperor Justinian lays commands upon

Conclusion. 147

Archbishops and Patriarchs of the old as well
as of the new Home. But what are the injunctions
contained in this passage, or in any part of the collec-
tion of the imperial laws ? Nothing else than that
they should have care to secure the due promulga-
tion and observance of the laws of the Empire. 14 In
this Novel, indeed, the Emperor Justinian intends
to sanction, and therefore to adopt as state laws, all
the canons and customs of the Church concerning
the privileges of the Clergy, and to enforce their ob-
servance as imperial laws. In those days the deadly
principle of divorce between Church and State was
unheard of; therefore the Emperors, according to
the duty of their protectorship of the Church, gave
a uniform sanction to all the ecclesiastical laws; so
that, the State being closely united to the Church and
sharing in her principle of life, all who had offended
against the Church by breach of her canons, should
at the same tune incur penalties at the hands of
the civil power. The Patriarchs and the Roman
Pontiff also, before the eighth century, were con-
sidered as Imperial Vicars, to whom the Imperial
laws were entrusted for their promulgation and
observance. This is the reason for which, in the
other extract which Mr. Eenouf quotes from St.
Gregory's Episth-s, the holy Pontiff says : "Ego

11 Novella cxxiii. Epilogus. In Corpora Juris Civilis, p. iii.
p. 5G6, cd. Lipsia-. 18G."). "Tua igitur gloria, qua? hac lege in per-
petuum valitura Serenitas nostra sancivit, per omnia observari caret,
et ad omnium imtitiam edii-tis in hac regia civitate propositis per-
ducat,"

1 48 Conclusion.

quidem jussioni subjectus .... qua3 debui
exsolvi," i. e. with regard to the promulgation of an
imperial law issued by Maurice. But again, the
Emperor, by his sanction, did not give any intrin-
sic authority to the canons of the Church. On this
account the Imperial Codes inform us that the civil
laws are grounded on the ecclesiastical prescriptions,
and that they follow and lean on them. 15 The Em-
perors regarded as divinely enacted what had been
decreed by the Apostolic authority. 16 Therefore they
received the sacred canons or decrees of the Church
as laws of the Empire ; 17 and declared all civil laws to
be null and void of effect when they contradicted the
laws enacted by the Church. 18 The Emperors, when
acting according to the maxims of the public law of
that age, never attempted to legislate in the Church,
but only to be the guardians and protectors of her
laws and constitutions. 19 This certainly does not mean
that the Christian Emperors ever claimed authority
over the Popes in the spiritual and ecclesiastical or-
der; especially as they expressly distinguished the two

15 Novel. Ixxxiii. c. i. 1. c. p. 382 ; Novel, cxxxiii. Prsef. 1. c.
p. 601 j Novel, cxxxvii. c. ii. 1. c. p. 626, &c.

16 " Constat esse caelitus constitutum quidquid apostolica de-
cernit auctoritas." Eescriptum Justinian! Imp. ad Dacianum Afri-
canum Episc. (penes Baronium, Annales, an. 541, n. xi. p. 380,
t. vii. ed. Colonize.)

17 Novel, vi. c. i. 8, 1. c. p. 36 ; Novel, cxxiii. c. xxii. 1. c.
p. 354 ; Novel, cxxxi. c. i. 1. c. p. 593, &c.

18 Codex Just. 1. i. tit. ii. lex xii. In Corpore Juris Civilis,
p. ii. ed. cit. p. 16.

19 In Rescripto cit. ad Dacianum, Novel, cxxxvii. Procemium.
1. c. ed. cit. p. 624.

Conclusion. 149

orders, ecclesiastic and civil, and the different offices
annexed to each of them. 20 But we do not intend
here to treat this matter, which is not connected
with our argument, and which would itself furnish
material for an entire volume. Our object is only
to cast a passing glance on the subject, in order
to caution Mr. Renouf not again to trouble his
countrymen with his ignorant assertions (they are
his own words) on matters to which he ought to
give far more study before he ventures to speak so
dogmatically. We are sorry that a man whose na-
tural gifts and acquirements might have enabled him
to do good service to the Church's cause in England,
should have misused his talents in the composition
of a pamphlet which cannot possibly have any effect
beyond that of filling the Church with scandal and
discord.

20 Novel, vi. praef. 1. c. ed. cit. p. 34. " Maxima inter homines
sunt dona Dei a supera benignitate data, sacerdotium et imperium,
quorum illud quidem divinis inservit, hoc vero humanas res regit,
carumque curam gerit."

THE END.

LONDON : ROBSOX AND SOX, PRINTERS, PAXCRAS ROAD, N.W.

1 r: S J ,v ?$

iWWl

.n-IJw 1 ,' 1

V '. ..r v, 1 /* ,